87``
Report B
Full Data Presentation
prepared for
MONCTON TECHNOLOGY
PLANNING GROUP
by the
IC? Institute, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN JANUARY 2007
Report B
Full Data Presentation
Prepared for the MONCTON TECHNOLOGY PLANNING GROUP
By the I ? I tit t at
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
April 2007
2
Report B
Established in 2004, the Moncton Technology Planning Group is comprised of community
leaders representing technology-based business, institutional research, venture capital, and
local government. The MTPG?s purpose is to advance dialogue and action that will lead to
the growth of technology-based enterprise in Moncton. Members of the group offer a wealth
of innovation and technology experience, and share the common goal of building on the
community?s strengths and potential to accelerate the growth of Moncton?s knowledge-based
economy.
Steve Palmer, C.O.O., Whitehill Technologies
Michelle Carinci, C.E.O., Atlantic Lottery Corporation
Jon Manship, Chairman, Technology Venture Corporation
Bob Rybak, Vice President of Technology, Spielo
Robin Drummond, Senior Director, Government Sponsored Group, Spielo
Rodney Ouellette, Executive Director, Beaus?jour Medical Research Institute
Stephen McClatchie, VP Academic and Research, Mount Allison University
Marc Surette, Canada Research Chair, Cellular Lipid Metabolism, Universit? de Moncton
R?jean Hall, Director, Innovation Support Office, Universit? de Moncton
Graham Sheppard, Principal, NBCC Moncton
Doug Robertson, Chair, Economic Affairs Committee of Council
The IC? Institute (The Innovation, Creativity & Capital Institute www.icc.utexas.edu) is an
organized research unit of The University of Texas at Austin with the vision that science and
technology are resources for economic development and enterprise growth; and the mission
to enhance research and education on the enterprise system in order to promote widespread
wealth creation and shared prosperity. Established in 1977, the IC? Institute founded the
Austin Technology Incubator (ATI) in 1984; and in 1996 established the Master of Science
Degree in Science and Technology Commercialization (MSSTC). Recently, ATI expanded to
include the Austin Wireless Incubator, the Clean Energy Incubator, Digital Media incubation,
as well as an active Global Commercialization Program. The institute has over 235
international fellows in business, academia and government ? peers of excellence who
actively support the vision and mission of the Institute worldwide. The IC? Institute directed
by Professor John Sibley Butler, who is also the Director of the Herb Kelleher Center for
Entrepreneurship at the McCombs School of Business, The University of Texas at Austin.
David Gibson, Co-Principal Investigator, Ph.D.
Bruce Kellison, Co-Principal Investigator, Ph.D.
Elsie Echeverri-Carroll, Research Scientist, Ph.D.
John Green, Research Associate, MSSTC
Darius Mahdjoubi, Research Associate, Ph.D.
Robert Meyer, Research Associate, JD, MBA, MSSTC, LLM
Rita Wright, Professional Librarian, MSLS
Margaret Cotrofeld, Technical Writer/Editor
Ryan Michael Coster, Graduate Research Assistant, Mount Allison University
Megan Meyer, Undergraduate Research Assistant, The University of Texas at Austin
Gina Phillips, Undergraduate Research Assistant, The University of Texas at Austin
3
Report B
ACCELERATING
Technology-Based Economic Growth &
Entrepreneurship in Greater Moncton
REPORT B: FULL DATA PRESENTATION
Prepared for the MONCTON TECHNOLOGY PLANNING GROUP
By the IC? Institute at
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
April 2007
With the cooperation of the government, universities, & businesses of Greater Moncton
The IC? team gratefully acknowledges the support and encouragement of the Moncton Technology
Planning Group and its chair, Douglas Robertson. Group members not only opened their businesses,
offices, and research programs to team members during the study but also facilitated interviews and
data collection across Moncton and throughout New Brunswick. For their invaluable counsel in
helping the research team to understand New Brunswick?s educational system, we thank R?jean Hall
at the Universit? de Moncton; Virendra Bhavsar, David Foord, and Gregory Kealey at UNB; Michel
Th?riault at NBCC/CCNB; Richard Corey at NBCC; Graham Sheppard at NBCC-Moncton; and Claude
Allard at CCNB-Dieppe. Finally, we would also like to recognize Mathieu Brideau of Business New
Brunswick, and Ben Champoux with the City of Moncton for research assistance and expert advice.
This report is dedicated to the memory of Len Weeks: a true champion of innovation, as well as a
mentor and friend to entrepreneurs in the Province of New Brunswick.
? Copyright January 2007, IC? Institute, The University of Texas at Austin. All rights reserved.
4
Report B
5
Report B
ACCELERATING
Technology-Based Economic Growth &
Entrepreneurship in Greater Moncton
REPORT B: FULL DATA PRESENTATION
CONTENTS
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y A N D R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
RESEARCH METHODS .............................................................................................................................11
MONCTON?S TECHNOLOGY PATH ...........................................................................................................11
STRATEGIES FOR SUCCESS AND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................12
CASE STUDIES OVERVIEW ...............................................................................................................13
K E Y O B J E C T I V E 1 : A C C E L E R AT E TA R G E T E D I N D U S T R Y
C L U S T E R S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5
B U S I N E S S D E V E L O P M E N T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6
CASE STUDY: MEDSENSES .........................................................................................................................16
ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND NEW VENTURES: AN OVERVIEW ................................................................18
Three Styles of Venture Development ...............................................................................................19
CASE STUDY: BMG CONSULTANTS, INC. .....................................................................................................22
AN INNOVATION PATH FOR MONCTON....................................................................................................23
R&D Paradigm vs. Innovation Paradigm ..........................................................................................23
R&D Paradigm: Local IP Challenges.................................................................................................24
Coordinating Both Development Paradigms.....................................................................................25
Moncton?s ICT strength ......................................................................................................................25
ICT and R&D........................................................................................................................................26
CASE STUDY: SPHERIC TECHNOLOGIES........................................................................................................26
STRATEGIES FOR A MONCTON TECHNOLOGY COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER (MTCC)........................28
Phase I Suggestions for the Moncton Technology Commercialization Center (MTCC) ..................28
Phase II Suggestions for the Moncton Technology Commercialization Center (MTCC) .................30
PROPOSAL: CREATIVE LEARNING INSTITUTE IN DIGITAL MEDIA ..........................................................33
Why Moncton ......................................................................................................................................33
Suggested Creative Learning Institute Affiliates ..............................................................................33
CASE STUDY: MINDSWEEP ......................................................................................................................34
K E Y O B J E C T I V E 2 : F O C U S O N E N T R E P R E N E U R S H I P . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
F I N A N C I N G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 9
CASE STUDY: WHITEHILL TECHNOLOGIES .....................................................................................................39
CASE STUDY: MICRO-OPTICS .....................................................................................................................41
FINANCIAL CAPITAL AND STYLES OF VENTURE DEVELOPMENT: POLICY IMPLICATIONS .....................42
Venture Capital Institutional Investment...........................................................................................43
International Venture Capital Patterns..............................................................................................45
Leading VC institutional investors in the Moncton region ...............................................................46
Individual Investors and Angels .........................................................................................................47
Government Agencies ........................................................................................................................48
6
Report B
Bank Loans......................................................................................................................................... 51
Self-Funded Ventures ........................................................................................................................ 52
RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................................................. 52
Self-Funded Ventures ........................................................................................................................ 53
Loans .................................................................................................................................................. 53
Government Agencies........................................................................................................................ 53
Individual (Angel) Investment Network ............................................................................................. 53
Institutional Investment..................................................................................................................... 54
CENTRAL TEXAS ANGEL NETWORK: A POSITIVE MODEL ...................................................................... 54
CASE STUDY: VIMSOFT INC........................................................................................................................ 55
CASE STUDY: INTELISYS AVIATION SYSTEMS, INC. ........................................................................................ 56
K E Y O B J E C T I V E 3 : F O S T E R A C A D E M I C & R E S E A R C H
E X C E L L E N C E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9
TA L E N T, E D U C AT I O N & T R A I N I N G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2
CASE STUDY: ARDENT DEVELOPMENT SOLUTIONS........................................................................................ 62
EDUCATION.............................................................................................................................................. 63
Technical Education: K-12 ................................................................................................................ 65
Bilingual Education ............................................................................................................................ 66
Success Rates of Placing Students at a University ......................................................................... 67
Quality of Math Education ................................................................................................................. 67
Drop-Out Rates................................................................................................................................... 68
An Issue of Concern? A Declining Student Population ................................................................... 68
K-12 Education for Tomorrow?s Workforce ...................................................................................... 70
K-12 Education: Assets and Challenges.......................................................................................... 71
U N D E R G R AD U A T E : I T E D U C A T I ON ............................................................................................ 71
Private Colleges: IT-Related Programs............................................................................................. 72
Community Colleges ? IT-Related Courses....................................................................................... 73
Universities: Science & Engineering Education .............................................................................. 74
Universities in Moncton ..................................................................................................................... 75
Other Universities in New Brunswick Province Educating Most of the Monctonians.................... 75
Closing the Gap in the Local Supply of University-Educated Workers ............................................ 77
CASE STUDY: VE NETWORKS .................................................................................................................... 81
R E S E A R C H & D E V E L O P M E N T B A S E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3
CASE STUDY: WIND ENERGY RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................ 83
CASE STUDY: NANOPTIX ........................................................................................................................... 84
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT FUNDING .............................................................................................. 86
R&D Investments: Universities.......................................................................................................... 87
Distribution of Research Funds at Universities in the Province...................................................... 91
ICT-RELATED RESEARCH CENTERS........................................................................................................ 93
University of New Brunswick at Fredericton..................................................................................... 93
Mount Allison University (Sackville, NB) ........................................................................................... 94
CENTERS RELATED TO ENTREPRENEURSHIP ....................................................................................... 94
Universit? de Moncton....................................................................................................................... 94
University of New Brunswick at Fredericton..................................................................................... 94
University of New Brunswick at Saint John ...................................................................................... 94
R&D INVESTMENTS IN THE NB UNIVERSITIES: ASSETS & CHALLENGES ............................................. 94
ACTION PLAN TO ACCELERATE MONCTON?S KNOWLEDGE-BASED GROWTH ...................................... 95
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ........................................................................ 95
Preferred IP Policies and Technology Transfer Practices ................................................................ 95
IP Ownership: The Oxford and Cambridge Model ............................................................................ 96
Moncton: Existing IP Practices ......................................................................................................... 98
Action Items........................................................................................................................................ 99
7
Report B
K E Y O B J E C T I V E 4 : P A R T N E R S H I P A N D A L L I A N C E S . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 1
E C O N O M I C B E N C H M A R K I N G : M O D E L F O R S U C C E S S . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 1
MONCTON?A SMALL CITY WITH HIGH TECHNOLOGY GOALS ..............................................................102
Choosing a Benchmark City for Moncton........................................................................................102
Oulu ?Small In Size, Big In Technology...........................................................................................105
The Beginnings .................................................................................................................................106
Oulu Today ........................................................................................................................................106
Behind Oulu?s Success.....................................................................................................................107
NEAR-TERM ACTION ITEMS ...................................................................................................................107
CASE STUDY: THIN FILMS AND PHOTONICS RESEARCH GROUP (GCMP) ........................................................108
ENLARGING NETWORKS .......................................................................................................................109
K E Y O B J E C T I V E 5 : P R O M O T E A C O M M O N V I S I O N F O R
D E V E L O P M E N T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1
C L O S E R R E G I O N A L N E T W O R K S A N D L O C A L E X P E R T I S E . . . . . . 1 1 2
BUILDING KNOWLEDGE-BASED INFRASTRUCTURE IN MONCTON......................................................112
Bioinformatics: The Bridge between ICT and Research & Development (R&D) Centers ............112
Beaus?jour Regional Health Authority ............................................................................................112
South-East Regional Health Authority, Moncton Hospital..............................................................113
Action Plan ........................................................................................................................................114
CASE STUDY: ATLANTIC CANCER RESEARCH INSTITUTE (ACRI) CASE STUDY...................................................114
CASE STUDY: SPIELO/GTECH .................................................................................................................116
A LAND DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE........................................................................................................119
Clustering Digital Content Assets and R&D Commercialization Assistance .................................119
Background .......................................................................................................................................119
Deal Structure...................................................................................................................................120
Finance..............................................................................................................................................121
Marketing ..........................................................................................................................................121
Benefits, Motivation and Rewards...................................................................................................122
CASE STUDY: MONCTON FLIGHT COLLEGE ..................................................................................................122
C O N C L U S I O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 5
FINAL FOCUS: THE OPPORTUNITY AT HAND.........................................................................................125
A P P E N D I C E S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 27
APPENDIX A. 2006 SURVEY ANALYSIS, MONCTON REGION GRADUATE STUDENTS .........................128
Survey Sample ..................................................................................................................................128
Survey Methods ................................................................................................................................130
KEY SURVEY FINDINGS..........................................................................................................................130
APPENDIX B. SURVEY INSTRUMENT ....................................................................................................141
English ...............................................................................................................................................141
Fran?ais.............................................................................................................................................148
APPENDIX C. OPEN RESPONSES TO SURVEY.......................................................................................155
APPENDIX D. MONCTON TRI-CITY AREA IT COMPANY TIMELINE .........................................................161
Methodology & the Dataset ......................................................................................................161
Timeline Trends ............................................................................................................................161
APPENDIX E. BENCHMARKING CITY COMPARISONS...........................................................................174
APPENDIX F. THE RESEARCH TEAM .....................................................................................................176
APPENDIX H. BIBLIOGRPAHY ................................................................................................................180
8
Report B
9
Report B
EXECUT IVE SUMMARY and RECOMMENDAT IONS 1
Accelerating Technology-Based Economic Growth and Entrepreneurship in Greater Moncton
provides select strategies for Moncton, New Brunswick, to take control of its economic
destiny. The report emphasizes the importance of having common visions and action plans
to mobilize key local partnerships. A main theme is the importance of collaboration and
cooperation among Greater Moncton business, academic, and government sectors. The
effectiveness of these partnering activities will largely determine the region?s ability to create
high-value jobs; educate, attract, and retain talent; and to accelerate economic growth while
sustaining a high quality-of-life for all citizens.
The overall vision is for Greater Moncton to be nationally and internationally recognized as a
region that is known for education and research excellence, creativity and entrepreneurial
success, and globally competitive business development in targeted technology sectors.
The report is organized in two parts. Report A (Executive Summary and Recommendations)
contains key findings and action items. Report B (Full Data Presentation) contains the body
of the report and supporting research data collected by the IC? team during the study.
Greater Moncton has been a regional leader in the use of strategic planning to guide
economic development, as evidenced by at least three community-wide strategic planning
efforts undertaken in 1989, 1994, and 1998. In 2004, the Moncton business community
perceived that its direction and unity of purpose (that had been so successful in the 1990s)
were being challenged. It found itself at a crossroads, partly due to the decreasing frequency
of new business investments and the increasing frequency of call center jobs moving
overseas. Consequently, Moncton stakeholders set as their mission to increase the quality
of jobs in the economy and to increase the level of educational attainment in the workforce.
This report emphasizes the key role of significant but limited assets, and both real and
perceived challenges, for accelerating technology-based growth and entrepreneurship in
Greater Moncton. Challenges include: 2
? Successfully recruiting established firms
? Launching and growing business start-ups
? Growing centers of R&D excellence
? Post-secondary education opportunities
? Expansion of career employment opportunities in knowledge-based industries
? The emigration of Moncton?s young, educated talent
1 The section ?Executive Summary & Recommendations? is also published under separate cover as ?Report A.? Some of
these materials are included with more detail in the remaining sections of this report.
2 Building on Our Success: A Strategic Plan for Greater Moncton, Enterprise Greater Moncton, April, 2004; New Brunswick
Capacity Study: Gaming, Simulation and Animation Industry Report, Red Hot Learning, Inc., October, 2004; City of Moncton
Economic Development Strategy, City of Moncton, November, 2005; Research & Discovery, Vol. 1, No. 2 (2005).
10
Report B
? Limited national and international visibility
? The lack of a common vision, brand, and strategic plan
In recognition of regional challenges, The Moncton Technology Planning Group (MTPG)3 and
other community leaders came together to commission the IC? Institute at The University of
Texas at Austin to do an action-oriented study for accelerating technology-based
entrepreneurship and economic development in Greater Moncton. The underpinning belief
is that:
? Technology-based growth is key to the creation of wealth and career oriented jobs.
? Rapidly changing national and global realities require change in regional economic
development strategies and policies.
? Moncton needs to be pro-active in determining its own destiny, rather than reacting
after the fact.
Working closely with the Moncton Technology Planning Group (MTPG), the IC? Institute at The
University of Texas at Austin conducted an assessment of Moncton?s business, academic,
and government assets, challenges, and opportunities. A main objective was to identify
specific near- and longer-term action initiatives for accelerated technology-based
entrepreneurship and economic growth in Greater Moncton to:
? Facilitate successful recruitment of companies and talent (e.g., professional,
entrepreneurial) in targeted industry sectors.
? Assist the growth of existing local technology-based organizations.
? Assist in the incubation and accelerated-growth of regionally based and globally
competitive companies.
? Leverage regional public and private assets more effectively, as well as national and
international partnerships, see Figure 1.
Figure 1. Four Strategies for Regional Economic Development
Source: IC? Institute, The University of Texas at Austin
3 The Moncton Technology Planning Group (MTPG) is comprised of community leaders representing business,
institutional research, venture capital, municipal government and community economic development.
Company/Talent
Relocation
Company/Talent
Retention &
Expansion
New Firm/Talent
Development
Regional, National, Global Partnerships for
Leveraged and Smart Economic Development
11
Report B
RESEARCH METHODS
The IC? Institute research team collected and analyzed data from January to September
2006, including:
? Five team and individual visits to Moncton
? Interviews with over 100 local and provincial leaders in academia, business, and
government (See Appendix G for the complete list of interviewees.)
? Reviews of 45 published economic development reports on Moncton, NB, and
Atlantic Canada (See Appendix H for bibliography.)
? A survey of 2006 college and university graduates from Moncton?s post-secondary
educational institutions to gauge their future employment plans and impressions of
Moncton?s economy (see Appendices A, B, C for the complete survey and analysis.)
The scope of work included:
? Developing a benchmark of existing Information and Computer Technology (ICT)
companies within Greater Moncton
? Documentation of Moncton?s research and development assets including
governmental programs and educational resources, and existing private companies
? Developing case profiles of local technology-based businesses and entrepreneurial
successes
? Identifying specific assets and challenges for technology-based innovation and
company growth, including assessing available and potential sources of capital
MONCTON?S TECHNOLOGY PATH
Moncton has two clear asset classes for growing a knowledge-based economy. The first is
represented by Moncton?s Information and Communication Technology (ICT) sector with over
400 companies (see Timeline Companies in Appendix D).4 Within ICT, Moncton?s strengths
exist in the area of interactive software (including game design, IT education, and software
design), digital media, and informatics (manipulating, storing, and classifying recorded
information, especially in the health sciences). The second technology-based asset class is
represented by Moncton?s existing R&D centers, including the Atlantic Cancer Research
Institute, the science research being conducted at the Universit? de Moncton, and the
bioscience commercialization initiatives at Mount Allison University. Technology transfer and
commercialization from these R&D centers, to a large degree, is in its infancy. Large-scale
commercial development in R&D, with significant local job growth, while encouraged, is a
longer-term proposition.
Simultaneous investment in both ICT and targeted R&D activity is recommended.
Investment of resources in ICT can be distributed across more companies and more
4 We use the definition of ICT companies supplied by Statistics Canada: ?Industries primarily engaged in
producing goods or services, or supplying technologies, used to process, transmit or receive information.? It is
based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Statistics Canada website, ?Special
Aggregation: Information and Communication Technology (ICT),? accessed November 16, 2006.
12
Report B
entrepreneurs, creating greater potential for job creation and economic growth. On the one
hand, with the array of ICT assets that currently exist in Moncton, it is recommended to focus
finances (and other resources for near-term wealth and job creation) toward assets that
offers the greatest and quickest return on investment: innovation and entrepreneurship in
digital content including services and product development. This report?s recommendations
specifically embrace five of the eight focused sectors from Moncton?s 2005 Strategy Report:
? Gaming technologies
? Animation sector
? Information and communications technologies
? Software development
? E-learning
STRATEGIES FOR SUCCESS AND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
To better focus Moncton?s priorities and objectives with regard to accelerated technology-
based growth and entrepreneurship, ?strategies for success? were defined in terms of five
key objectives, which are supported by content as follows.
OBJECTIVE 1. Accelerate technology-based business development in established and
emerging industry clusters with the greatest growth potential. The industry cluster with the
greatest growth potential in Moncton is ICT (Information and Communications Technology).
Key recommendations include the creation of Moncton Technology Commercialization Center
that will serve the needs of ICT entrepreneurs and provide commercialization services to
Moncton?s R&D centers; and a plan to build a Creative Learning Institute in Digital Media in
which to test game design and equipment for Spielo, Atlantic Lottery Corporation, and other
local companies. It also recommends an innovation path for Moncton based on existing ICT
strengths and R&D centers of excellence. It expands on the importance of nurturing fast-
growing companies by presenting a novel typology of companies and their use of different
sources of financial capital.
OBJECTIVE 2. Develop Greater Moncton as an emerging center of technology-based
entrepreneurship. An environmental scan and assessment is presented of the sources of
financial capital available to growing technology companies in the region, with emphasis on
increasing the amount of funding available for start-up companies. A model for organizing
angel investors in Moncton in also offered.
OBJECTIVE 3. Foster academic and research excellence that is specifically linked to regional
economic development. Educational assets are summarized and analyzed in order to
recommend strategies to improve the post-secondary educational attainment gap between
the Anglophone and Francophone communities in Moncton.
Existing R&D investments are also examined, with particular attention paid to university-
based sponsored research. Existing and preferred intellectual property and tech transfer
regimes in Moncton and the region are also summarized.
OBJECTIVE 4. Foster and leverage regional, national, and global value-added partnerships
and alliances. Specific steps are outlined, that the city could take to create an incubator and
13
Report B
innovation center through a land development initiative. The presence of significant activity
in bioinformatics in the city, especially at the two hospitals, suggests that bio- and health-
informatics could be a bridge between ICT and R&D assets in the city.
OBJECTIVE 5. Promote a common vision and coordinated action initiatives targeted to brand
Greater Moncton as an important emerging center of technology-based entrepreneurship
and business development. Oulu, Finland is presented as a model of success for IT
development, and overall conclusions are presented to assist local champions to coordinate
a regional effort for action.
CASE STUDIES OVERVIEW
In order to provide a rich and more textured perspective on the business environment for
technology companies in Moncton, seventeen case studies on individual companies or
organizations have been developed by IC? project staff. Data on individual companies or
organizations were collected from a variety of public information sources, as well as
interviews with principals and business partners. Interspersed throughout the report, the
purpose of the case studies is to celebrate success stories in Moncton?s technology sector, to
highlight assets and challenges for tech firms in Moncton, and to summarize ?lessons
learned? from which similar companies might benefit in the future. These companies
illustrate the breadth and depth of innovation in Moncton?s economy, as well as the vibrant
economic impact that technology firms can make in the Moncton region. Firms were not
selected randomly; instead the IC? team members made a deliberate attempt to include
ventures that were:
? important for lessons learned
? represented a cross section of different technology sectors
? represented a variety of company sizes, years in business, etc.
Company case studies appear as follows:
Large Firms
Micro Optics, page 41
Nanoptix, page 83
Spielo/GTECH, page 116
Whitehill Technologies, page 39
Small Companies/Start-ups
Ardent Development Solutions, page 62
BMG Consultants, Inc., page 22
InteliSys Aviation Systems, Inc, page 56
MedSenses, page 16
MindSWEEP, page 34
Spheric Technologies, page 26
VE Networks, page 80
Vimsoft, page 55
Case study-type write-ups on other institutions/organizations:
Atlantic Cancer Research Institute, page 115
Moncton Flight College, page 122
Thin Films and Photonics Research Group (GCMP), page 108
14
Report B
Wind Energy Research & Development, page 82
In prologue, the following appendices are offered for further data examination: A. Survey Of
Graduate Students Results, Analysis; B. Survey Instrument; C. Open Responses To Survey;
D. Timeline Companies; E. Benchmarking City Comparisons; F. The Research Team; G.
Interviews; H. Bibliography.
15
Report B
KEY OBJECTIVE 1: Accelerate Targeted Industry Clusters
Accelerate technology-based business development in established and emerging
industry clusters with the greatest growth potential.
Vision:
Greater Moncton experiences accelerated technology-based company growth for enhanced
wealth and job creation.
Challenges:
? Limited density/size of R&D centers and industry sectors
? Inventor-owned intellectual property regime
? Limited sources of financing for start-ups
? Limited talent for senior management and corporate board
Strategies:
? Establish an inventory of established academic assets.
? Establish an inventory of regional industry.
? Link R&D centers to local business and start-ups more effectively through such
activities as a Moncton Technology Commercialization Center (MTCC), a Creative
Learning Institute in Digital Media, and a Bioscience Consortia.
? Better identify and coordinate sources of financial support for R&D through
commercialization and business start-ups.
Specific Actions:
? Provide a strategy for establishing a Moncton Technology Commercialization Center
(MTCC) ? Incubator.
? Focus on dual, simultaneous economic development strategies for:
o Near-Term Innovation-Based Growth (e.g., ICT, Gaming)
o Longer-Term R&D-Based Growth (e.g., Biosciences, Informatics, Thin Films).
Initial tenants in the incubator could include:
? Dr. Yves Gagnon, K.C. Irving Chair in Sustainable Development at the
Universit? de Moncton, has a technology commercialization proposal to
develop a new company to build a small wind turbine for residential and
small business applications; also Dr. Gagnon?s proposed Eco-Efficiency
Center would promote reduced industrial energy use through better
energy management, efficient waste processes, and outreach efforts (see
complete case study).
? Dr. Rodney Ouellette, Scientific Director and CEO, Atlantic Cancer
Research Institute, has research that is viable for commercialization (see
complete case study).
? Both IT departments at the two Moncton hospitals have expressed
interest in developing closer contacts with local IT companies and
16
Report B
commercializing research from their hospitals by opening an office in a
new incubator.
? Enhance existing assets and knowledge, which are closer to the market place;
success with near-term objectives will provide momentum and resources to support
more long-term research and development.
? Strengthen outreach to regional business know-how.
? Involve faculty and students from the Universit? de Moncton, Mount Allison
University, New Brunswick Community Colleges in Moncton and Dieppe and others.
? Develop links with the Austin Technology Incubator (www.ati.utexas.edu).
? Develop national and international partnerships and alliances focused on targeted
industry sectors through, in part, strategic alliance with IC? Institute
(www.icc.utexas.edu).
Finance:
? Provide subsidized office space at the proposed MTCC for VC and angel investors.
o Invite VC and angels from outside region.
? Promote ?Bootstrapping? as a viable form of venture funding.
o Form an advocacy organization to coordinate resources and provide mentorship
for gazelle-type ventures.
? Develop and organize a local business angel network.
? Identify and coordinate VC, angel, and governmental financial support for business
development (downstream activities) as well as R&D development (upstream
activities).
Education/Training:
? Improve workforce education and training program mechanisms within specific
technology sectors in the Greater Moncton Region (see Key Objective 3).
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
CASE STUDY: MedSenses
Interview with Trisha Coady, CEO
MedSenses (medsenses.com) offers custom-built continuing education modules for
healthcare professionals in need of specialty and mandatory training. This e-learning
start-up provides hospitals and other developers with the ability to seamlessly
integrate a variety of portable courseware, complete with 3-D interactive tools, into
other proprietary learner management systems. The company?s two founders, Trisha
Coady and Lynn Casey, are nurses from Moncton Hospital who started writing
content for instructor-led courses and seminars in 2001. ?We wanted to get critical
thinking back into the course materials we delivered, which was well-received by our
audiences,? said Coady. In January 2006, the pair secured a three-year
entrepreneurial leave from the hospital in order to devote themselves full-time to the
start-up.
17
Report B
Background
In 2004, Coady and Casey formulated their business plan by talking with industry
associations in a variety of countries to ascertain the need for continuing education
in the nursing field. ?We discovered that hospitals are desperate to save money on
continuing education in order to meet budgetary constraints,? said Coady. They also
want to exercise due diligence to improve the quality of patient care, decrease
patient length of stay, and minimize the occurrence of medication errors. A related
market, healthcare corporations, also has the specific need to offer accessible, high-
quality continuing education to their employees.
As information technology began to spread throughout the nursing field, MedSenses
realized that an online format would be the most efficient manner to accomplish
these goals. Their first courses included 3-D animations and interactions that were
created in collaboration with local animators. ?Medical animators were too
expensive for us, so we contracted with a Moncton company, Kervan Media, to
provide us with graphic design, learning management systems software connections,
and technical support,? Coady said.
MedSenses is trying to tap an enormous market: there are 56 million nurses in the
world, and it is vital for hospitals to constantly recruit, retain, and provide continuing
education for this skilled workforce in order to maintain high levels of patient care.
The firm?s current clients include corporations and individual end-users across
Canada and the U.S., providing a modest revenue stream to the fledgling firm.
MedSenses courses are accredited by the American Nurses Credentialing Center (the
only nursing credentialing body in North America), which provides a critical advantage
in the marketplace.
Assets and Challenges
Connectivity: MedSenses became frustrated with the lack of adequate wireless
internet services in both of the office locations that the company has occupied in
downtown Moncton. Neither Aliant nor Rogers offers local technical support; instead
technical trouble-shooting and problem-solving are forwarded to a third-party call
center. Although broadband internet coverage is available, it also only provides
marginal technical support. In addition, Coady says that Aliant is unable to break
apart three phone lines for their needs; consequently the company will probably go
with VOIP when it is time to upgrade to a system that can handle greater call volume.
?It?s frustrating that we are an on-line company that cannot get on-line access on
Main Street in Moncton,? she says.
Financing: Coady and Casey went everywhere in their search for start-up capital --
banks, credit unions, BNB, NBIF, NBIC, ACOA, BDC, and Enterprise Greater Moncton --
with no success. ?Everyone was reluctant to support two nurses from Moncton,?
Coady says. As a result, she and her co-founder turned to a private investor for
MedSenses? first funding round, which kept MedSenses afloat during its R&D phase
from September 2005 to May 2006. They then found a business mentor in Saint
John to help position the company with investors, and to assist with networking and
building a board of directors. Following the R&D phase, when it grew necessary to
seek a second round of funding, the same funding agencies and sources that turned
them down for the first round, saying they were too inexperienced, turned them down
again just months later saying they were now too advanced. Coady observes that
venture capitalists expect a large amount of equity for a small amount of investment,
18
Report B
while potential institutional investors do not accurately evaluate MedSenses?
intellectual property.
Global reach: Like other ICT start-ups in Moncton, MedSenses understands the
importance of attacking international markets at early stages in its growth. Currently
the company has been contacted by U.S. and Canadian software firms in the
healthcare industry to negotiate value-added channel relationships. Coady and
Casey have also been contacted by a U.K. marketing firm to discuss a possible E.U.
market infiltration as well. The company?s immediate focus is to reach 1.3 percent of
the 3.3 million nurses in North America with its courses by 2008.
Lessons Learned
Networking and Mentoring: MedSenses believes that the key to helping start-up
firms succeed is to improve the networking and mentoring environment. ?We have
networked with Learn NB and through the Cyber Socials, but many business mentors
and angel investors in the region understand ?bricks and mortar? companies more
quickly than ICT companies,? said Coady. ?But once we found the right people, by
pushing our networking activities to the limit, Moncton has been a great place to be
located.?
Funding: Any start-up, but especially a technology start-up, has trouble raising capital
? a problem that is magnified in an environment dominated by traditional industries
and a lack of well-networked angel investors. MedSenses has been particularly
frustrated by programs that offer funding opportunities but then quixotically remove
the offer. Coady cites the ?Women in Business Initiative? by TriCo Credit Union, which
has promoted a $150 million fund for women-owned businesses. Loans, however,
are only available if a start-up has $1 million in the bank as collateral.
MedSenses has learned that VC investors are more receptive to investing in the ICT
industry because they understand the incredible potential for rapid growth and
wealth creation of such companies. Coady?s experience shows that investors in
traditional industries -- as well as some government agencies -- still consider ICT
businesses to be high risk, despite easy access to global markets and low overhead
costs.
ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND NEW VENTURES: AN OVERVIEW
Perhaps the most influential researcher to underscore the importance of new
entrepreneurial firms for job creation is MIT researcher David Birch5 who was the first
recipient of the prestigious International Award for Entrepreneurship and Small Business
Research by the Swedish Foundation for Small Business Research.6 According to Birch, a
type of business venture which he designated ?Gazelle ventures,? accounted for more than
70 percent of the employment growth in the U.S. between 1992 and 1996, while
representing only about 3 percent of the firm population.7 Birch demonstrated that Gazelle
5 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 2005 Report on High-Expectation Entrepreneurship
http://www.mazars.de/download/studien/GEM%20full%20report.pdf#search=%22DAVID%20BIRCH%20%22who
%20is%20creating%20jobs%22%22
6 http://www.fsf.se/eng/index.htm
7 Birch, D. (1987). Job Generation in America. The Free Press, New York. Birch, D. (1995). Who is Creating
Jobs? Cognetics, Cambridge, MA.
19
Report B
ventures are distinct from other types of business ventures in style, manner, pattern and
result. Birch?s work has important implications for how Moncton might address the question
of how best to promote and finance knowledge-based firms.
For new venture development, the need for capital investment increases in a direct
relationship to the time required to bring a new technology to market. The two investments
of time and money increase in tandem, according to the complexity of the technology under
development. It is generally true that great technology advancements require great
investments of both. It is assumed that financial debt is necessary in order to provide
marketable advancements in technology. However, it is a false assumption that new venture
success is directly related to access to large amounts of venture capital. A novel theory of
innovation postulates that the ideal path for new ventures is not always through heavy
capital investment.
Three Styles of Venture Development
There are two main thresholds in the early stages of venture development: Start-up?when
the founders spend substantial amounts of their time (part time to full time); and
Breakeven?when total sales become equal to total costs, and the new venture has the
capability to gain positive cash flow. Accordingly, the early stages of venture development
are classified into three distinct stages: Ideation, Survival, and Growth. The Ideation stage
precedes the start-up threshold, when generating new ideas is the main concern of the new
venture. The Survival stage occurs between start-up and the breakeven point, when cash
flow is negative and the new venture is trying to keep itself afloat. The Growth stage
happens after the new venture is able to pass the breakeven point and has a positive cash
flow.
All new ventures may be divided into three types as they each pass through these stages of
venture development. New ventures seem to conduct business in similar fashion during the
Ideation stage: the core technology is defined while the conceptual groundwork is laid for
marketing, human resources, and company organization. After the Ideation stage, new
ventures enter the Survival stage and follow one of three paths: the slow lifestyle path
(?Turtle? ventures); the fast organic path (?Gazelle? ventures); or the express path (?Rocket?
ventures), Figure 2. 8
?Rocket ventures? are ?revenue calibrated? in the sense that they are capable of fast growth
if fueled adequately with extensive investments of capital. During the Survival stage of
business development, Rocket ventures set out upon the risky course of assuming a
substantial debt burden in order to reach the breakeven point in sales (thereafter growing
with irresistible market momentum). This development pattern is generically considered to
be the one true commercialization path. New ventures of this type include pharmaceutical
start-ups and other high-tech ventures that are venture-capital-driven. During the Survival
stage, Rocket ventures plunge into massive debt in order to build organization, perfect a core
technology, and recruit the talent needed to perfect a venture that will explode through the
Growth stage, where massive profits are anticipated. Astronomical revenues and staggering
profits are expected to manifest and provide both a) repayment of the incurred debt and b)
high rewards for the founders and their shareholders.
8 The section Three Styles of Venture Development is based on the studies of Darius Mahdjoubi.
20
Report B
Slow Lifestyle Path ?
Turtle Ventures
Fast Organic Path ?
Gazelle Ventures
Express Path ?
Rocket Ventures
(S
al
es
) $
Startup Break-Even Point
Ideation Survival Growth
(C
as
h
Fl
ow
) $
Time
Ideation Survival Growth
(C
as
h
Fl
ow
) $
Time
(S
al
es
) $
Ideation Survival Growth
(C
as
h
Fl
ow
) $
Time
(S
al
es
) $
? Darius Mahdjoubi, 2006
Figure 2. Patterns of Cash-flow and Sales in Three Styles of Venture Development
However, many Rocket ventures do not exit the Survival stage; many languish for years in the
stark absence of profitability while they continue to attract investment in consecutive rounds
of venture capital. Data and practical experience both demonstrate that only a fraction of
these ventures ultimately succeeds. Many venture capitalists aspire to a one-in-six success
rate. The core technologies that spawn successful Rocket ventures usually arise from a
research infrastructure of talent, equipment, and facilities.
?Turtle? ventures, in comparison to Rocket ventures, are financially conservative. Turtle
ventures are founded by entrepreneurs motivated to reach the breakeven point of
profitability (reflected in cash flow) with a minimum of debt. Their business goals are
modest, growth is slow, and sweat equity is common. Founders of Turtle ventures think and
act small in the beginning. In a sense, they try to carry what they need with them as they
move along the business cycle.
While few Rocket ventures flare into profitability, and Turtle ventures cling to the safety of low
cash flow, Birch?s data showed that some new ventures build value while minimizing fixed
costs; keep expenses at a minimum, and achieve profitability with modest sales but a strong
balance sheet; and then are able to position themselves to warrant major venture capital
investment. These ?Gazelle ventures? survive conservatively until they reach profitability with
a razor-sharp competitive edge. If properly resourced with financial support at the right
moment in their business cycle, these companies can attain rapid growth and significant
revenues but without the debt burden and the high mortality rate of Rocket ventures.
Moncton has such success stories, including Spielo and Whitehill Technologies. These two
ventures show exactly this history; enterprise value was cautiously established before
venture capital was invested. Their founders were familiar with latent market demand in ICT
sector niches; their technologies were pulled by an identified market demand rather than
pushed by creative scientific impulse.
?Gazelle ventures? hold a position between Turtle and Rocket ventures. Gazelle and Turtle
ventures are both self-funded companies in the first two stages of company development:
Ideation and Survival. Yet Gazelle ventures are distinct from Turtles in the aspirations of
21
Report B
their entrepreneurs, and the type of technologies they pursue. The differentiation of Gazelle
ventures from Rocket ventures can be made during the Survival stages of development.
Gazelle ventures are not based on technologies that require lengthy, expensive scientific
processes. At the same time, the founders aspire to achieve returns beyond sustenance
levels; the companies are founded on a longer term plan for growth that can be well
articulated; the management style strives for efficiency and does not scale for explosive
growth until the product is profitable; frequently the technology is based on reverse
engineering; management seeks to satisfy a specific, identified market demand, in lieu of
establishing organizational buildup to support the perfection of a technology that requires
expensive, lengthy development. Birch first pointed out twenty years ago, that only after
reaching profitability, when imminent success is likely, do Gazelle enterprises assume the
higher risks that Rocket ventures at start-up.
Understanding the distinct role of Gazelle ventures is what earned Birch reputation and
acclaim. His novel theory of innovation, applicable to the circumstances in Moncton,
proposes a method not merely for identifying but also nurturing Gazelle ventures. Rocket,
Gazelle, and Turtle ventures each rely on specific sources of capital. Rocket ventures need
extensive financial backing and operate like mature businesses very early in their life cycles.
Yet the presence of capital does not guarantee longer term sustainability; and abundant
initial capital will sometimes result in unrestrained spending. In contrast, Gazelle ventures
seek modest amounts of financial capital from personal resources, minimal loans, and credit
from suppliers and customers.
New high-tech ventures with laboratory-based R&D-derived core technologies require large
infusions of capital for product development; these ventures, by necessity, will be Rocket
ventures. Hard science R&D must usually be fed with large amounts of capital through the
Survival stage because the chasm to be crossed between a prototype and a market launch is
vast. Furthermore, the requirement for executive management and board governance is
much higher for Rocket ventures than for Gazelle ventures. Costly investments during
Survival stage leave little room for error in the commercialization path; early missteps that
are later magnified during the growth stage cannot be afforded.
Cutting-edge R&D as the ideal innovation model (as it evolved in the 20th Century) requires
heavy funding to sponsor a large research base and additional infusions of capital as each
new competitive advantage is refined for marketability. ICT, however, is market-driven, not
research-driven and can display short time-to-market periods when managed by market-
savvy penurious founders. If one compares the time-to-market for a new drug versus a new
software program, a new bio science product versus a new video game; or a new cancer
treatment versus an internet service, one immediately recognizes the difference between
Rocket venture development and the Gazelle/Turtle type of venture development.
Many founders of ?Turtle? ventures never intend to achieve large growth, but prefer their
companies to remain modest. As such, their contribution to the macro economy is minimal,
except in the aggregate. Other ventures by their very nature must be undertaken as Rocket
ventures with all the risk that is entailed to that model. As such, the cost to society for
Rocket ventures ? when measured across the large number of failures ? limits their net
contribution to the macro economy. Gazelle enterprises, on the other hand, leverage
dedicated resources with the least risk, to produce the greatest return on a community?s
investment.
22
Report B
If a community?s sole metric is home-grown homeruns, resources should be dedicated
exclusively to Rocket ventures. If, however the desired metric is knowledge-based economic
development, the probability of success increases when placing investments in Gazelle
enterprises. However, if not properly resourced by their environment, Gazelle ventures will
be relegated to remain Turtle ventures, and their communities will be the poorer for it. The
question is not how Moncton can grow a limited number of Rocket ventures, but how might
the region nurture as many Gazelle ventures as possible.
CASE STUDY: BMG Consultants, Inc.
Interview with Louis-Philippe Gauthier, Co-founder and President
Background
BMG specializes in web site development, web applications, and eMarketing. As the
largest Francophone IT company in Atlantic Canada, the firm has a strong link to the
communications field through their ownership of CapAcadie.com, the largest French
news and information portal in Canada outside of Qu?bec.
Philippe Gauthier, a graduate of the Universit? de Moncton, co-founded the company
in 1996. At first, Gauthier shunned government funding or assistance from angel
investors and focused instead on growing the company from sales and savings.
From 1996 to 1999, the tools that allowed the use of databases via the web
proliferated; BMG's first big project, in 1998, was to develop the first fully web-based
payroll processing system in Canada for the federation of French Credit Unions.
In 2005, Bristol (Atlantic Canada?s largest full service communication firm) became
the majority shareholder of BMG. These new partners provided BMG with access to
capital and new market opportunities. This transaction has had a substantial impact
on BMG?s revenues and has allowed the company to more than double its employee
base from four to ten employees in one year.
Assets and Challenges
Gauthier feels the entrepreneurial climate in Moncton and Dieppe could improve by
mentoring of young people with the initiative and desire to become entrepreneurs.
Both French- and English-speaking businesses should offer more internships and
more readily provide personal mentoring to students and young people. Gauthier is
the president of the Conseil ?conomique du Nouveau Brunswick (the association
representing the French business community for over 25 years); he also teaches MIS
courses in the MBA program at the Universit? de Moncton. Gauthier explains that
while some mentoring does take place, a more systematic process would be
beneficial. He suggests that Enterprise Greater Moncton and the Chamber of
Commerce, in collaboration with the C?NB, and the Universit? de Moncton, could
lead the effort to foster mentor programs.
Lessons Learned
Gauthier asserts that the cultural differences that exist between the cities of
Moncton and Dieppe should be leveraged as opportunities to contribute to economic
development in both cities. Every effort should be taken by local leadership in
government and business, he says, to encourage business growth in both cities,
because "any plan to grow Moncton necessarily includes Dieppe." A publicly funded
ICT incubator available to entrepreneurs in both cities could be a successful first
23
Report B
step, because the ICT industry in Dieppe is not very large; companies based in
Dieppe would benefit from synergies created around an ICT incubator that housed
firms from both the Francophone and Anglophone communities.
AN INNOVATION PATH FOR MONCTON
Moncton has two clear asset areas in its knowledge-based economy: organically launched
ICT companies, and the R&D activity represented by centers of excellence like the Atlantic
Cancer Research Institute. Moncton?s knowledge-based innovation economy is currently
developing along two paths. The first path is innovative, in which start-up companies, mostly
in the ICT sector and outside the R&D centers, arise spontaneously from entrepreneurial
initiatives. In the near term, the growth and expansion of these companies and the
emergence of new ones in the ICT sector could be dramatically assisted by a supply of
resources housed in a new incubator. Longer-term, an innovation center could evolve
around the incubator, providing a wider range of resources and services for entrepreneurs
and companies large and small, and some governmental agencies like Atlantic Canada
Lottery. Taking an even longer view (20 years), the innovation center itself could transition
into a research park. The second path for increasing knowledge-based entrepreneurship in
Moncton involves commercialization of R&D coming out of the research centers in the
region, much of which is in the bioscience disciplines. Developing companies and creating
wealth along both these paths will involve strategies that are both distinct and overlapping;
the R&D paradigm and the innovation paradigm.
R&D Paradigm vs. Innovation Paradigm9
In the 1950s and 1960s, the prevailing view was that the combined effect of basic research,
applied research, and development was the only path to regional economic prosperity. A
paradigm grew around the discovery of knowledge (developed within specific scientific
disciplines in university, government, or corporate labs) that was shared with industry
through technology transfer and introduced to the public.
Technology-intensive companies closely affiliated with universities and corporate private labs
undeniably contribute to economic growth and job creation. However, since the 1970s a
second alternative -- the Innovation paradigm ? emerged that integrates customer
development with organically derived technology. Companies that dwell in the sector where
digital content resides (such as Apple, Microsoft, Compaq, Lotus, and Dell) were not founded
on university research but achieved success because they seamlessly merged technologies
with markets. The founders did not possess strong technical capabilities or academic
credentials; many of them were college dropouts. Contrasting these two paradigms provides
a new perspective for Moncton?s potential business development strategies from the micro
level of individual companies to the macro level of regional community development.
Bioscience technologies require the structure of the R&D paradigm; ICT development, on the
other hand, tends to flourish in the Innovation paradigm. Each paradigm displays distinct
parameters, including management styles, investment patterns, product life cycles, resource
needs, etc.
Because the technologies that come out of lab-based research require a massive amount
time-consuming product development, start-up companies in the R&D paradigm require a
9 The section R&D Paradigm vs. Innovation Paradigm is based on the studies of Darius
Mahdjoubi.
24
Report B
large, ongoing cash infusion of venture capital (the Rocket model of development). These
companies need particularized resources, including boards of directors, mentor
management, and advisors with first-hand experience in that business model. Successful
commercialization of cutting-edge science normally requires rigorous technology
assessments, market studies that involve complex patent searches, and industry analyses
that carefully evaluate technologies that compete closely in a tight market space. It is
difficult to nurture and protect a competitive advantage that is based on incremental
advancements of basic science; consequently early-stage R&D companies tend to polarize
employment between senior management and scientific personnel.
The founders of start-up companies in the Innovation paradigm, on the other hand, tend to
be self-funded; and if they reach profitability, they do so more quickly than R&D-based
companies because they are usually smaller-scale companies with low overhead and rapid
product development. These companies also need particularized resources and incubator
services. The core technology of these organically grown companies is innovation of existing
knowledge, usually provided by a founder with an intuitive sense of market direction and
technology application. The high cost associated with protecting intellectual property, is not
usually an issue; and the division of labor in early stage organic innovative ICT companies is
egalitarian: concentrated among skilled labor, project managers, and entrepreneurial
founders.
The rate of new start-up activity and the time-to-market for new products and services is
markedly different in these two paradigms. It is not by coincidence that the bioscience
cluster along Route 128 in Boston is vertically integrated with a more closed structure, while
Silicon Valley benefits from open networks of communication horizontally across firms. The
R&D paradigm tends to result in vertically integrated firms, while innovation paradigm firms
flourish under non-proprietary standards, in decentralized organizations with cooperative
information sharing and in which some processes are outsourced. In order to fully leverage
assets and resources, bioscience commercialization will, as a rule, proceed under a different
paradigm than digital content and therefore should be planned for accordingly.
R&D Paradigm: Local IP Challenges
Excellence can be found in a number of bioscience niches in the Moncton region. However,
numerous factors mitigate the choice of R&D-based bioscience as the primary near-term
target sector for building a knowledge-based economy. While exceptional successes are in
store from ongoing bioscience R&D, the challenge to efficiently commercialize those
successes in the near term is great, and is tied to complex IP, tech transfer, and financial
capital issues. As a result, the R&D model is unlikely to contribute to significant job growth in
Moncton in the short- to mid-term. For the foreseeable future, significant advances in this
sector are most likely to be accomplished through licensing agreements. Out-licensing,
which normally leads to migration of IP outside of the region, is not a strong method for
promoting local job growth.
Start-ups in the bioscience sector require close attention to business formalities in the early
stages, so that in later stages venture capital companies can make investment without
facing the frustration of dealing with equity apportionment, anti-dilution, defective share
holder agreements, and other contentious governance issues. It is of high concern that, in
the Atlantic provinces, talent for the highest level of corporate governance and executive
management mentorship is in short supply.10
10 The challenges facing bioscience start-ups in Atlantic Canada were outlined in an interview with Peter Forton,
Growthworks.
25
Report B
Also of high concern, the current IP regime grants university inventors unilateral decision-
making power over new technologies. Even excellent legal counsel and commercialization
expertise must face the challenge to avoid circumstances in which intellectual property is
inadvertently negotiated away in head-to-head discussions between faculty/inventors and
multi-national corporations? licensees and research sponsors. If institutional experts could
be unilaterally empowered to make commercialization decisions, the situation would be
vastly different. Presently, most inventors may elect whether or not to embark on a
commercialization path ? a decision that can come late or not at all. Faculty/inventors, as IP
owners, have a qualified obligation to participate in commercialization initiatives, even in the
presence of low personal interest for the process. A conundrum exists: while there is often a
?disconnect? between IP generators and economic development planners, other inventors
plea for help with commercialization.
Coordinating Both Development Paradigms
In Moncton, simultaneous investment of resources in ICT and formal R&D is appropriate.
Greater potential for job creation and economic growth should be realized with resources
invested in ICT, which will ultimately spread resources across more companies and more
entrepreneurs. Moncton would be best served to focus its resources in this sector, as it
emphasizes innovation in digital content services and product development.
Moncton?s ICT strength
The recommendation to invest in Information and Communications Technologies specifically
addresses the five key threats and challenges that the City of Moncton identified in its 2005
strategy report:
1. Demographics: The niches in the ICT sector that are recommended directly appeal to the
more youthful age brackets and address the aging population dilemma.
2. Limited post-secondary education opportunities for Anglophones: Establishment of new
articulation agreements and computer science and applied IT programs in Moncton to
raise the number of post-secondary educational offerings for Anglophone students.
3. Lack of challenging employment opportunities in knowledge-based industries and the
creative economy: Employment data suggest demand for ICT jobs is up, even while
enrollment in IT programs at CCNB and NBCC is down. A promotional campaign to
reverse this trend is needed region- and perhaps province-wide. ICT entrepreneurship
should be directly supported by the proposed Moncton Technology Commercialization
Center (MTCC).
4. Weak attractiveness factors that are crucial to making our city more appealing to younger
people: It is recommended, for example, that an international gaming conference be
staged in Moncton and that digital content niches be promoted in primary and secondary
educational programs
5. Weak national and international visibility: Moncton?s ICT entrepreneurship could be
accelerated with the support of a specialized incubator. While the Moncton Technology
Commercialization Center (MTCC) can be branded provincially, international
entrepreneurship can also be promoted through competitions promoting international
student exchange similar to the USA/Canada/Mexico program in place at the Universit?
de Moncton?s Faculty of Business.
The 2005 Plan presented eight focused sectors for development; of these, we suggest
targeting five:
? Gaming technologies
? Animation sector
? Information and communications technologies
26
Report B
? Software development
? E-learning
A primary ICT focus also reverberates at the national level. The Committee on the State of
Science and Technology in Canada, sponsored by the Council of Canadian Academies, in its
2006 report, specifically promotes ?new media, multimedia, animation and gaming, where
Canada is internationally recognized as a leader, with a number of successful companies as
well as a reputation for superb skills training? and recognizes its upward trending momentum
second only to oil sands nationally. Aside from technologies and sciences related to natural
resources, the national view is ?the perception of strength is greatest for?information and
communications technologies (ICT).?
ICT and R&D
To increase knowledge-based entrepreneurship, the City of Moncton should purposefully
move toward a dual economic development strategy that leverages the community?s ICT
assets while it nurtures the community of R&D researchers. It is vital for Moncton to support
ICT start-up companies that arise organically through entrepreneurial, market-driven
innovation, as evidenced by the predominance of digital content companies in the
community?s timeline of overall start-up activity (see Appendix D). It is also important to
commercialize R&D in the region, for longer-term growth with high potential for return. Both
these strategies would be promoted with the development of a regional business incubator.
Further, an incubator would create new communication channels between these two
entrepreneurial communities, which could result in more synergistic commercialization of
new technologies as they emerge into the marketplace.
CASE STUDY: Spheric Technologies
Interview with Adam MacDonald, Co-founder
In 2001, Spheric Technologies was founded like many local start-ups: in the
basement of a suburban home. With the leadership of founders Dan Martell and
Adam MacDonald, the company has been in full operation for two and a half years
and is quickly building a reputation as a competitive provider of consulting and
support services for companies using a BEA? Aqualogic portal.
Background
Early in its operations, Spheric was off to a running start, earning $1 million in gross
sales in its first fiscal year. The company currently employs a team of 10 and hopes
to expand its operations by 12 employees in the next year. Most of Spheric?s clients
(roughly 90 percent) are in the United States, though the company also serves a
number of Canadian clients. The Spheric team travels across North America to assist
these clients to plan and implement customized portals using the BEA? Aqualogic
technology; they also perform limited amounts of research and product development
in Moncton to complement these services.
One of Spheric?s central doctrines is to do more with less. Martell and MacDonald
have established a lean operation to keep costs as low as possible. Any function
outside of the company?s core competency is outsourced, so that time and money
are not spent trying to develop unnecessary skill sets. This lean operating philosophy
has been a driving force in overall growth, as it enables them to frequently underbid
competition and secure projects. Spheric has also financed the entirety of its
27
Report B
operations and growth from sales revenue without help from loans, government
grants, or venture capital.
Assets and Challenges
Basing Spheric?s operations in Moncton is critical to its competitive edge. Low salary
and overhead costs enable the company to keep operating expenses low, and
consequently, able to underbid the competition. Spheric has also benefited from
open communication lines with other technology firms in the region, particularly
Ardent Technologies. Company officers regularly participate in Moncton?s Cyber
Socials to develop relationships with other local technology companies. While these
companies compete -- both in the marketplace and for local talent -- they also
cooperate to their mutual benefit. For example, other companies will sometimes
refer potential employees to Spheric when the applicants? skill sets are better suited
to its operations. Likewise, Spheric and Ardent have established a support
relationship so that Spheric employees located all over North America can receive
technical support from Ardent staff if no one is available at Spheric.
But while Spheric does not require extensive office space (its employees frequently
work at client sites), they have found it difficult to find affordable office space that is
centrally located. Likewise, Moncton?s business internet connectivity is insufficient to
their needs; and is all the more frustrating because resources are in place that could
make local connectivity more effective.
Spheric also faces significant difficulties traveling in and out of Moncton; there are
few direct flights and the airport is small. Employees often need to make numerous
connections in order to reach their destination, which can add hours to travel time.
Continental?s new direct flight has been helpful, but more resources in air travel are
needed.
Spheric leadership feels that -- while technology education in Moncton is strong --
local colleges should be more responsive to the needs of local companies. While
coursework prepares students generally, there is a need for specialized courses in
technology areas: a benefit that would be felt at Spheric and other local technology
companies as well. NBCC, CCNB, and other local colleges with technology programs
should more frequently seek input from the ICT industry regarding curriculum
selection and course offerings -- in order to provide graduates with the skill sets
required by local industry.
Lessons Learned
Spheric suggested several initiatives to assist new companies in Moncton. First,
internet connectivity should be improved with more fiber optic lines; further, a
wireless network in downtown Moncton would be beneficial. ?I would love nothing
better than to be able to go down to Timothy?s, grab a cup of coffee, and do some of
my project management work,? says twenty-something founder, Adam MacDonald.
MacDonald also recommended a formalized system to help entrepreneurs in the
community to share experiences and resources. MacDonald suggested a new
system like Cyber Socials be established that is open to all entrepreneurs in the
region rather than just technology firms. He is also an advocate for a formalized
mentoring program in the community to help foster better business skills. While
28
Report B
Spheric has sought needed consulting services in larger Canadian cities, local
resources would be preferable.
STRATEGIES FOR A MONCTON TECHNOLOGY COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER
(MTCC)11
The recommendation for a Moncton regional technology commercialization center
(incubator) and larger innovation center (science park) is to start small, leverage available
resources to the benefit of the tenant companies, and build a track record of success. IC?
Institute?s Austin Technology Incubator (ATI) was launched in 1989 in 4,000 square feet of
donated office space. The City, the County, and The Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce
seed-funded the three-year experiment ? about $30,000 each for three years ? to create
wealth, generate jobs, diversify Austin?s struggling economy, fill office space, and help
catalyze and build an entrepreneurial infrastructure for the City. The main expenses were
salary for the incubator director and her assistant, office supplies, and building taxes. Office
furnishing and equipment were donated from university surplus and by local office/furniture
supply stores in hopes of developing a new customer base. Professional legal, accounting,
management, and marketing talent from the region also donated their time to assist the
companies in order to help grow future paying clients. In addition to receiving rent from
tenant companies, a private financial donor contributed additional needed funds. Of the first
three tenant companies: One was recruited from California, one from a local research
consortium, and another from The University of Texas at Austin. The strategy was to select
the best candidates for near-term success to establish a positive track record.
Phase I Suggestions for the Moncton Technology Commercialization Center (MTCC)
The delivery of value-added services becomes a vital differentiator between successful and
unsuccessful incubators.12 The National Business Incubator Association (NBIA) published a
report of the incubation industry and identified typical services (by more than 75 percent of
the respondents) offered by technology incubators:
? assistance with business basics
? marketing assistance
? accounting/financial management
? investor and strategic partner linkages
? networking activities
? links to higher educational institution
? conference rooms and other shared facilities
? shared administrative services
Figure 3 provides an overview of the critical components of ATI and shows the public private
regional support (university, business, government, non-profit) that was key to the incubators
success. Each of these sectors was represented in ATI?s Advisory Board. A Technical and
Business Advisory Board also helped review and select the best incubator tenant companies.
ATI was affiliated with the newly formed Texas Angel Capital Network as there was limited
Angel and VC investment available in the region in 1989. Most important was the selection
of a highly capable incubator director. ATI?s first director was not a technologist, but she was
extremely capable at evaluating or ?sizing up? prospective tenant companies; in building
11 ?Overview of U.S. Incubators and the Case of the Austin Technology Incubator,? by J. Wiggins and D. Gibson,
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Vol. 3, Nos. 1 and 2 (2003).
12 Ibid, p. 58.
29
Report B
Technology
Incubator
(non-profit/profit)
Entrepreneurs
Technology
Incubator Affiliation
Administration
Know-How
Networks
Support Systems
T
e
n
a
n
t
C
o
m
p
a
n
i
e
s
Product/Process
Commercialization
Economic
Development
Job Creation
Profits
Viable
Companies
Industrial
Competitiveness
Facilities
Capital
.
P
ri
va
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
G
ov
er
nm
en
t
No
n-
Pr
of
it
Global
Networks
Experimental
Laboratory
regional academic, business, and government networks; in focusing on and assisting with
tenant-company mentoring for success; and being entrepreneurial in leveraging physical
resources, talent, and business know-how. The incubator?s director and know-how networks
also worked to help find financial support and building alliances with established companies.
Outputs of ATI centered on shortening time-to-market by minimizing mistakes and
maximizing value-added learning. ATI was a living learning experiential laboratory for
students and faculty. As graduating companies grew, they hired local students and other
employees, paid taxes, filled local office space, and generally contributed to the local
community. These same organizing principles were emphasized when ATI, in 1991, moved
into its second facility of 60,000 ft. and housed about 22 companies (mostly IT). The
incubator staff was kept to about 4 persons, but the professional know-how network grew to
include hundreds of professionals.
Figure 3. Important Basic Components of Technology/Business Incubators
Based on the ATI model, Initial crucial MTCC criteria for success include:
? Deal flow ? promote sufficient numbers of technology and business applicants so the
incubator has the ability to select the most promising business ideas.
? Community support and involvement ? local business and government officials support
the incubator and provide free or discounted professional advice to tenant companies
? University support and involvement ?faculty and students teach and work at the
incubator, helping the companies with technology and business assessments, marketing
plans, financial plans, etc., while the companies provide experiential learning
opportunities.
30
Report B
Concise program
milestones with
clear policies and
procedures
Incubator
Tie to a
university
Selection
process for
tenants
In-kind
professional
support
Community
support
Entrepreneurial
networks: regional,
national,
international
Entrepreneurial
education
Perception
of success
On-site learning
and leveraging
of resources
Access to
financing and
capitalization
Figure 4. Ten success factors for the Moncton Technology Commercialization Center
Phase II Suggestions for the Moncton Technology Commercialization Center (MTCC)
As a Phase II model for MTCC, we again look to the Austin Technology Incubator. When ATI?s
initial success warranted larger facilities, the incubator moved to its present location, where
it occupies about 40,000 sq. ft. in a university-owned building. Financial support has been
provided by tenant company office rent, research projects, occasional contributions from the
city, and private sector partnerships. Over the years, as a result of changing local and global
conditions, ATI has transitioned from a location for subsidized rent, business plan support,
and business know-how support, to enhanced value-added support and market making
activities (see Figure 5). Initially ATI welcomed a broad range of technology-based
companies, but it has increasingly focused of late on industry sectors that are most linked to
regional emerging business sectors and related UT-Austin academic excellence, including IT,
wireless, Clean Energy, and Digital Media.
An additional current focus of ATI is to facilitate global incubation; international companies
are incubated at ATI with an emphasis on ?market making? support. For example, ATI is
currently mentoring 12 select companies from Mexico. The TechBA program is funded by the
Mexican government with the goal to accelerate technology business growth though
increased access to U.S. markets and business alliances. ATI has also launched cooperative
programs with Poland and Portugal and has had tenant companies from Brazil, Japan, and
Canada.
ATI served as a catalyst for Austin?s economic recovery in the 1990s by developing an
entrepreneurial support infrastructure, expanding the region?s tax revenues, and increasing
demand for commercial office space. Over the years ATI has measured itself according to
four basic criteria: business creation, wealth generation, innovation, and value to the
31
Report B
Value to today?s
entrepreneur
Start-up
infrastructure
support
?Market making?
Sector-specific
acceleration
(clean energy,
wireless)
Example services
offered to
entrepreneurs
?Office space
?Professional
services
facilitation
?Capital networks
?Business
consulting
As at left, plus:
?High-touch
consulting
??Virtual Board?
?Target capital
matchmaking
(e.g., Sevin
Rosen)
As at left, plus:
?Access to
?chokepoint?
technologies, key
customers
Time
1989 2006
Figure 5. ATI?s Transition in Value-Added Activities for Tenant Companies
Source: Isaac Barchas, ATI Director 2006
university (student internships and entrepreneurship research). As of 2006, ATI has
graduated more than 150 companies, raised $720 million (USD) in capital, had four
companies launch initial public offerings, had 20 of its companies acquired, launched 30
independent profitable companies, and created 3,000 direct and 7,000 indirect jobs. ATI
has won numerous awards, including NBIA?s award as Incubator of the Year and the
prestigious Justin Morrill Award from the Technology Transfer Society. Four of its companies
have won NBIA incubator ?Company of the Year? awards. Indeed, ATI has served as a model
incubator for a number of incubation programs in the U.S. and worldwide. Important lessons
have been learned about successful business incubation:
? Sustainability must be addressed. In the USA, more that 75 percent of all incubators
are non-profit being supported by local governments, academic institutions and/or local
businesses.13 After its initial success in launching fast-growth companies, in about 1995
ATI started asking for 1-3 percent equity in companies admitted into ATI and more
recently requests financial compensation for value-added services provided by industry
sector efforts.
? Develop a workable selection process. Selecting the right companies is a key
consideration that sets apart one incubator from another. The selection process needs
to be rational, well communicated, and appropriate to the mission and context of the
incubator while being flexible enough to allow for exceptions in unusual situations.
Specific product and business criteria should govern the companies allowed in and those
kept out. Each of the various stages (application, recruitment, due diligence, selection,
13 Ibid, p. 57.
32
Report B
induction, and orientation) requires attention. Adequate databases should be kept;
records of agreements should be archived.
ATI employs both an internal and external review process requiring both written and oral
material from those who apply. The written material (business plan and/or executive
summary) shows the quality of thought put into the business and the depth of domain
knowledge of the team. The verbal presentation provides an opportunity to meet and
observe the team. The external process brings the company before a panel of
outstanding investors, entrepreneurs and service professionals from the community;
thus assuring a fair hearing of its business proposal. The external panels also provide a
way for ATI to connect to the community and provide potential alliances between the
presenting company and the audience members.
? Develop service system that delivers on behalf of client companies. All incubators are
service organizations. Whatever services it offers ? from facilities to partner networks to
funding to education and training ? an incubator must measure itself according to two
standards. It should design value-added services that client companies need and deliver
those services in a consistent, timely, and value-added fashion.
? Provide entrepreneurial leadership. A critical attribute of successful incubation
programs in the U.S. is an entrepreneurial staff. From director to receptionist, each
should assume a ?can-do? attitude, an ability to solve problems, a clear focus on results,
and a willingness to work hard. An incubator?s first director usually sets the tone for the
future development and long-lasting success or failure of an incubator program.
? Establish clear metrics of success. Every incubator program should establish criteria
of success against which it measures its performance. According to the NBIA, industry-
wide priorities include creating jobs, creating new business, reducing business failures,
accelerating business success, facilitating capital investment, and leveraging funds.
Select incubators may have other domain-specific and local objectives such as
encouraging minority or women entrepreneurs, revitalizing a distressed neighborhood,
commercializing technologies, diversifying local economies, moving people from welfare
to work, building or accelerating growth of a local industry, generating income and
benefits for the sponsoring organizations, retaining businesses in the local community,
and enhancing a community?s entrepreneurial climate.
ATI?s growth has taken a natural and logical course: growing in size as it takes on more
companies; growing in services as ?best practices? are honed and developed; enlarging its
networks as a natural result of pairing high potential companies with venture capitalists and
other professionals in the community; expanding to strategic new industry sectors as the
region?s economy diversifies. Most importantly, the Austin Technology Incubator is an
interactive component in Austin?s economy as a whole ? and it is supported by broad-based
interests and financial investments. With similar community focus and support, the MTCC
could serve as a similar catalyst to accelerate technology development in Moncton.
33
Report B
PROPOSAL: CREATIVE LEARNING INSTITUTE IN DIGITAL MEDIA
We propose the creation of a collaborative gaming and ICT-related innovation center in
Moncton. Tentatively called the ?Creative Learning Institute in Digital Media,? the center
would operate as an idea laboratory for new technologies, where students could interact with
companies to test new devices, games, consoles, and other technologies. Initial funding
could come from appropriate government programs, Atlantic Lottery Corporation, and
Spielo/GTECH. Such a gaming facility could dedicate a portion of its revenues to support
research activities at the center. Technologies and talent could be drawn from the funding
partners and affiliates (see below) as well as secondary and post-secondary educational
institutions across Atlantic Canada. Similar alliances could be formed with national and
international affiliates including The University of Texas at Austin; Austin?s game, film, and
arts businesses and communities; and select IC? global partners (e.g., Portugal, Poland,
Korea).
An underlying premise is that enhanced creativity will result from collaboration between
creative talent that is broad-based, eclectic, and from diverse backgrounds and geographic
locations. Atlantic Canada is a preferred product and market development location for
gaming technologies; new alliances can enlarge current markets and create new ones while
increasing the region?s international reputation in this industry sector.
Why Moncton
? Atlantic Lottery is headquartered in Moncton.
? GTECH has major operations in Moncton as well as Austin, Texas and Poland.
Moncton benefits from strong, knowledgeable executive and knowledge links to
GTECH.
? Being based in Atlantic Provinces, Canada, Atlantic Lottery is free from many product
development and marketing constraints that exist in such places as Texas and
generally in the U.S.
? Moncton is a central location to draw on student talent from colleges and universities
in Atlantic Canada.
? Moncton desires to accelerate technology based growth and has champions
dedicated to this vision.
Suggested Creative Learning Institute Affiliates
Austin, Texas Related Assets:
? Austin is the third largest gaming development location in the U.S. with successful
gaming pioneers and current leaders such as Richard Garriott, NC Soft.
? Dell Computers, founded and based in Austin, is moving rapidly into gaming through
alliances with champions like Garriott and others.
? Digital film producer Richard Linkletter, a graduate of UT Film School, films many of his
creative and innovative productions in Austin.
? The City of Austin is working to build its Digital Media economic development related
activities.
? The University of Texas at Austin is building a Digital Media Center of Excellence, drawing
on computer sciences, engineering, and the creative arts.
? IC? Institute?s Austin Technology Incubator (ATI) is considering the creation of a Digital
Media Facility to leverage with the successful ATI Wireless Incubator.
? Austin?s entertainment sector (e.g., film, music) is world-recognized and growing.
? IC? Institute has an on-going Visiting Scholars Program with Korea Telecom, which is
moving into the mobile gaming space and is sending its executives to study at UT?s Film
34
Report B
School for developing content know-how (Korea is a leader in gaming and wireless
technologies).
Portugal-Related Assets:
? Portugal has developed trusted relationships with key academic, business, and
government officials in technology commercialization over the past ten years.
? The Portuguese government is developing a 5-year R&D and commercialization
agreement with IC? Institute and UT-Austin focused on Digital Media.
? Several Portuguese companies have novel technologies and content based on the EU
market, e.g., www.YDREAMS.com.
Poland-Related Assets:
? IC? Institute has established networks based on 3 years of program development with
leading Polish universities.
? Poland has relatively inexpensive world-class technology and software developers.
? The University of Texas at Austin?s College of Communication is linked to the world
famous Lodz Film School in Poland.
? Dell Computers is opening a plant in Lodz, Poland.
Clearly, other country partners for talent, technology, finance, and markets could and should
be added, but it is suggested to launch the Moncton Creative Learning Institute with the
above known, value-added entities.
CASE STUDY: MindSWEEP
Interview with Eric Papillon, President and Founder
MindSWEEP was founded in Dieppe as a web development company in 2002. The
company offers web design, hosting, marketing and promotion, as well as other IT
services to clients all over the world. MindSWEEP started with 12 clients and a team
of 3 technology experts, including founder Eric Papillon.
In the first two years of operations, its revenues doubled, and after four years, its
client list has increased to 450, serving clients in the United States, Mexico, Africa,
and nearly every province in Canada. About 10-15 percent of its 450 clients are
located in or around the Moncton/Dieppe area. With a meager $1,200 annual
marketing budget, Papillon feels the increase in clients is a result of customer service
and satisfied client referrals.
Papillon has been asked to speak repeatedly as a model entrepreneur to students at
CCNB-Dieppe, and in 2005 his company was awarded the City of Dieppe?s ?Emerging
Business Award.?
Background
Eric Papillon started his web-development business amid the technology crash of
2001-2002 with very little business background. He moved to Dieppe from Prince
Edward Island where he had worked as a general manager for a struggling IT
company. Papillon decided to start his business in Dieppe because the majority of
his competitors were in Moncton, and he hoped to absorb a large portion of the local
Dieppe market if he was located there. ?I?ve always been the kind of guy to take a
35
Report B
risk,? he says. Starting MindSWEEP from scratch with little investment support was a
significant risk.
Currently renovating their offices in Dieppe, MindSweep also plans to open an office
on Prince Edward Island. ?Enlarging our current offices makes more financial sense
than moving into a new location, with rents as high as they are,? says Papillon. It has
been challenging for Papillon to find reasonably priced office space in Dieppe.
Though it would be slightly less expensive to move to Moncton, he feels the
competitive advantages of staying in Dieppe are worth the extra expenses.
Assets and Challenges
Papillon found it difficult to obtain early-stage funding. He sought support from
governmental agencies such as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA),
and the National Research Council Industrial Research Assistance Program (NRC-
IRAP), but was disqualified under their funding restrictions. (To be eligible for
funding, he needed to have more capital on hand and to document revenue from
international contracts.) MindSWEEP also had difficulty obtaining commercial loans;
banks were reluctant to fund a new technology company when so many had recently
failed in the area.
MindSWEEP has not had difficulty finding quality staff locally, though Papillon does
feel that many of the graduates of local universities are not given sufficient
opportunity to practice what they are learning. To be part of the solution to that
problem, he consistently hires students for internship positions to help them gain
necessary experience.
Lessons Learned
MindSWEEP requires fiber optic internet connections to run its business.
Unfortunately, the small number of suppliers makes subscribing to a service
expensive. Papillon feels that a fiber optic loop around the city of Moncton would be
beneficial to MindSWEEP and other companies that require the connection; further,
he feels that an established loop would attract more providers of fiber optic service
increase competition, and lower the cost of internet connectivity.
The Moncton/Dieppe area would also benefit if local universities or community
colleges would develop IT education that integrated entrepreneurship and basic
business skills (although a new concern arises to establish access to start-up capital
for new entrepreneurs graduating from such a program).
Papillon supports the development of a new technology center that would provide
free or discounted services such as teleconferencing to emerging companies. It
would likewise be beneficial if the region established an incubator center for young
companies to provide affordable office space and common services such as
reception staff, and necessary electronics such as telephones, computers, copiers,
and fax machines. Papillon has been contacted by private sources seeking to
establish such facilities in both Dieppe and Prince Edward Island, but a government-
funded resource would be more useful to local companies like MindSWEEP.
He is a proponent that internship programs be provided through regional universities,
as well as incentives for local companies to participate in these programs in order to
provide students better preparation to join the local workforce upon graduation.
36
Report B
Finally, Papillon asserts that the region needs to develop additional financing
opportunities for start-ups in addition to conventional ACOA or IRAP funding. It is
difficult for companies to obtain support from these agencies before they have
demonstrated revenues, but impossible to develop products to generate revenues
without investment capital.
37
Report B
KEY OBJECTIVE 2: Focus on Entrepreneurship
Develop Greater Moncton as an emerging center of technology-based entrepreneurship.
Vision:
Greater Moncton becomes a national and international center for educating, recruiting,
and retaining entrepreneurial talent.
Challenges:
? Greater Moncton is currently losing some of its best entrepreneurial talent to higher-
paying jobs and more exciting career opportunities in Toronto, Quebec, Montreal,
Ottawa, Halifax, and elsewhere (See Student Survey, Appendices A, B, C).
? Existing entrepreneurial support mechanisms are fragmented.
Strategies:
? Celebrate Moncton?s entrepreneurial successes that have overcome regional
challenges (see Case Studies for Spielo/GTECH, Whitehill Technologies, Ardent
Development Solutions, BMG, Mindsweep, VE Networks, and Vimsoft).
? Recognize the importance of ? and actively support ? grassroots development of
entrepreneurial initiatives to educate, retain, and recruit talent.
Specific Actions:
? Organize a Greater Moncton Entrepreneurial Council:
o Facilitate monthly meetings with small dues for refreshments, promotion,
speaker fees, etc.
o Provide a forum for regional, national, and international speakers.
? Use Internet and web infrastructure for virtual community-building among Moncton
entrepreneurs.
? Foster entrepreneurship of younger individuals in the region:
o Create a regional business plan competition for university and college students
and an associated competition for regional high schools.
o Offer entrepreneurial training for key personnel in start-ups and in established
firms.
o Take advantage of the talent of local residents who are retired or semi-retired,
who would be outstanding mentors for younger entrepreneurs.
? Provide small grants which may lead to larger funds from outside sponsors:
o Create a venture research fund for faculty and students supporting new research
leading to commercialization that is unlikely to be supported by traditional
sponsors without further development.
o Limit most grants to around $20,000 Canadian (or less).
o Focus funds to encourage research and innovation in targeted technology areas.
o Make a concerted effort to bring back entrepreneurial talent that traditionally has
left the community for post-secondary education and for better paying jobs and
career development elsewhere.
38
Report B
Simultaneous investment in both ICT and targeted R&D activity is recommended.
Investment of resources in ICT should be distributed across more companies and more
entrepreneurs, creating greater potential for spectacular success in job creation and
economic growth. With the array of ICT assets that currently exist in Moncton, it is
recommended to focus finances (and other resources for near-term wealth and job creation)
toward the single asset that offers the greatest and quickest return on investment:
innovation and entrepreneurship in digital content including services and product
development. Five of the eight focused sectors from Moncton?s 2005 Strategy Report are
recommended:
? Gaming technologies
? Animation sector
? Information and communications technologies
? Software development
? E-learning
Current recommendations (see below) specifically answer five key threats and challenges to
the ICT growth that the City of Moncton identified in its 2005 strategy report:
1. Demographics The niches in the ICT sector that are recommended directly appeal to
more youthful age brackets to address Moncton and New Brunswick?s aging
demographics.
2. Limited post-secondary education opportunities for Anglophones Establishment of new
articulation agreements and computer science and applied IT programs in Moncton to
raise the number of post-secondary educational offerings for Anglophone students (See
Key Objective 3).14
3. Lack of challenging employment opportunities in knowledge-based industries and the
creative economy Employment data suggest demand for ICT jobs is up, even while
enrollment in IT programs at NBCC and CCNB is at capacity.
4. Weak attractiveness factors that are crucial to making the city more appealing to younger
people It is recommended, for example, that an annual gaming conference be staged in
Moncton and that digital content niches be promoted in primary and secondary
educational programs.
5. Weak national and international visibility Moncton?s ICT entrepreneurship could be
accelerated with the support of a specialized incubator. While the Moncton Technology
Commercialization Center (MTCC) can be branded provincially, international entrepre-
neurship can also be promoted through competitions promoting international student
exchange similar to the USA/Canada/Mexico program in place at the Universit? de
Moncton?s Faculty of Business.
14 The City of Moncton?s ?Downtown Moncton Development Vision? supports the idea of locating a university
presence in the downtown area. See p. 5, http://www.moncton.ca/search/english/cityhall/downtown/strategy-
draft.pdf
39
Report B
F I NA NCI NG
CASE STUDY: Whitehill Technologies
Interview with Steve Palmer, Chief Operating Officer
Whitehill Technologies was founded in Moncton in 1997 to develop software for
billing-related document conversion for law firms and their clients. Whitehill has
since developed similar products for customers in the insurance and financial
services industries. They currently have over 800 clients in the U.S., Europe, and
Canada, with annual revenues over $25 million. The company operates from a
20,000 square-foot facility in Moncton and has a large presence in Markham,
Ontario and other smaller offices, including Roanoke, Virginia.
Background
As a start-up company in Moncton, Whitehill benefited at first from provincial and
federal programs that wanted to see it succeed in the region; service excellence
among its original employees, many of whom are still with the company; and
supportive infrastructure in the growing city of Moncton. Whitehill's founders
recognized a niche in the processing of legal documents and in short order
developed a product, a marketing strategy, and a sales force. Many law firms, the
founders realized, have very high levels of customer service and often customized
documents to meet client needs. Document customization is often a time-consuming
manual process that is prone to errors. Whitehill developed software to automate
this process. These products "lead and leverage," according to Palmer; that is, they
are globally competitive with international software vendors, but they leverage a
client's existing software, complementing legacy systems. Whitehill products are not
dominant applications but are extremely adaptable to client needs.
The company succeeded quickly for a number of reasons. First of all, its marketing
and sales strategy was to penetrate U.S. markets with its first products. Usually the
pattern for software start-ups in Moncton is to first market products or services
locally, then to a Canadian market, and then to the U.S. and England. According to
Palmer, however, ?As a software company, if you?re going to make it, you?ve got to
make it in the States,? so going directly after U.S. clients enabled Whitehill to prove
early on that it was globally competitive with its products and services. A second
strategy that helped Whitehill grow successfully is that its early operations were
financed not with venture capital but from ongoing revenues. The firm is a good case
of a company that started with a modest amount of initial capital which was able to
grow quickly and finance itself organically from sales, rather than from an extensive
amount of external capital. Whitehill was forced to pursue a number of revenue-
generating services that, while not necessarily in its niche, could add value for its
clients.
Assets and Challenges
Palmer believes that Whitehill?s employee team and management group is unusually
dedicated to the company and its mission, and he believes a big part of that is
Moncton itself. Many Moncton residents live in the area for personal rather than
professional reasons and thus have a strong attachment to Moncton and Atlantic
Canada. Since business opportunities are not as widespread in Moncton as they
might be in a larger city, Whitehill employees are more willing to work through
40
Report B
personal and professional difficulties to stay with the company. Consequently,
Whitehill?s staff has developed a strong sense of continuity and community which is
evident in an extraordinarily cohesive upper-management team, as well as in product
support, sales, professional services, and software development groups, which all
work and communicate effectively together. Their cohesiveness, according to
Palmer, creates innovation and superior performance throughout the organization.
Among the biggest challenges of growing a company Whitehill?s size, Palmer said, is
that Moncton lacks a talent pool large enough to locate local employees with certain
specialized skills. Whitehill has been able to fill 85-90 percent of its professional
staffing needs locally in Moncton, but for certain skilled positions, Whitehill has had
to hire employees in other cities who work for the company remotely. Recently,
Whitehill was unable to locally staff an experienced sales manager for its insurance
operations ? a position that required a professional with over 10 years of sales
experience as well as numerous ties to the insurance industry. In a larger city, it may
have been easier to find an employee to meet such a specialized need, but Whitehill
was unable to find the right fit in Moncton, so it hired a consultant based in the U.S.
for the position.
Additionally, finding experienced senior managers is a challenge for Moncton's
technology companies. Whitehill?s senior management team is composed primarily
of professionals who worked in large organizations prior to the company's founding.
But the limited number of large technology companies locally means that there are
few experienced technology managers available, which may mean that Whitehill will
need to compete in national and international labor markets to recruit senior-level
managers to guide the company to its next level of growth.
Lessons Learned
Palmer believes that one of the most important attributes to recognize about start-up
firms is that the success rate is always fairly low. ?The numbers game says you need
a bunch of start-ups to get success stories,? he says. Consequently, he feels it is
important to celebrate entrepreneurial successes and encourage those who fail to try
again. Palmer says, ?We in New Brunswick need to be less envious of
entrepreneurial success and support entrepreneurial endeavors in any way possible.?
Tales of start-up success and failure should be given broad press coverage in local
and regional media so that young people with business ideas can have a more
realistic idea of what entrepreneurship is all about.
Finally, Palmer believes that one of Moncton?s greatest needs is to mentor young
entrepreneurs through a strong, multifaceted mentoring program should be
developed for the city. The Rising Stars program currently run by the Greater
Moncton Knowledge Industry Network and Enterprise Greater Moncton is a good
start. Start-up company executives and others with strong business or technical
expertise should advise young company founders throughout the process of starting
and growing a new business, both through individual mentoring and by serving on
advisory boards. Also, Palmer believes that many of Moncton?s IT firms have
business models that can be replicated easily in different niche markets. ?There are
many 50- to 100-person businesses that could flourish and do niche plays,? he says.
Business leaders in the community should identify successful, repeatable business
models and share this information to cultivate new economic activity.
41
Report B
CASE STUDY: Micro-Optics
Interview with Mike Power, former VP Sales, October 23, 2006
Micro-Optics was a Moncton technology company that started in 1994 and ceased
operations in 2003. Its principals included researchers from the Universit? de
Moncton. It raised a large amount of venture capital and grant support from
provincial and federal agencies. It sold its manufactured product into international
markets. Its experience, successes, and demise, therefore, hold valuable lessons for
other regional start-up companies, investors, and policy makers.
Background
Mark Savoie founded Micro-Optics in 1994 around a new technology to carve
eyeglass lenses with a novel method that introduced new efficiencies and eliminated
traditional manufacturing steps. The prototype involved a ?cut and coat? process
that was extremely promising. With financial help from a few angel investors, friends,
and family, Savoie built the prototype and created a management and sales team
with an initial $1 million. By late 1996, Savoie had completed the prototype and
Micro-Optics was successful in attracting $5-10 million in a second round of
financing from ACOA, the NRC, and venture capitalists.
Mike Power joined the company in 1997 to begin selling the first fully functional
machines worldwide. Just as the firm was moving the machines to market, however,
the first UltraLab process problems appeared. Micro-Optics? instrument cut glass so
finely that the cutting process left sub-micron marks on the glass surface that
defracted light and caused lenses to be defective. Scientists at the NRC could not
help because the manufacturing scale was so new: Micro-Optics? instrument was
shaving lenses in nanometers, not microns. To remediate the problem by buffing the
lenses would re-introduce steps in the lens carving process that the machine was
designed to eliminate.
Management decided to move forward with placing the $500,000 machines with the
first customers, despite reintroducing buffing to the cut-and-coat process. Between
1997 and 2000, as the company developed a second iteration of the machine with
fully integrated robotics, 20 machines were sold to companies like Essilor
Laboratories of America, Oakley, Eye Care Center, Kaiser Permanente, Wal-Mart, and
other eyewear manufacturers worldwide for $1 million per unit.
Micro-Optics employed 150-160 people in Moncton in 2000, many of whom were
talented engineers trained at universities in Atlantic Canada. The company?s
financials, however, were not secure. Cash flow and invested capital were not
enough to cover operations. There were no economies of scale, and the
manufacturing facility worked around the clock to deal with maintenance and
process issues. Two more rounds of venture capital and ACOA grants were required
to pay vendors during production delays, not invest in new markets. Most of the
marketing effort and huge amounts of money, Power says, were spent managing
customer expectations and handling complaints about the machine. Finally, in 2003
the company ceased operations and declared bankruptcy. Somewhat ironically,
approximately 25 Micro-Optics machines are still in use around the world and are
42
Report B
considered to be the best on the market. In all, Micro-Optics absorbed more than
$34 million in venture capital investment and received $6 million in loans and grants
from ACOA. It is estimated that in total, Micro-Optics raised more $50 million in
financing during its 9-year lifespan.15
Lessons Learned
Micro-Optics succeeded on many fronts and fell short on others. For the purposes of
the case study, however, it is important not to focus on why the company went out of
business but to take away lessons from its experience that might inform other
technology entrepreneurs in Moncton.
Manufacturing: Micro-Optics developed a technology that clearly improved a
manufacturing process in a large market (eyewear). The problem was rooted in
bringing a complex machine to market before it was ready. ?Dozens of different
things could throw off machine results,? Mike Power said, ?which made it difficult to
repair. Essentially the machine was the culmination of more than a hundred discrete
processes. Each adjustment required recalibrating many other parts. Once the
machines had been sold and installed, repairs became expensive, time-consuming,
and financially draining.? Management considered selling the core technology to a
more experienced German manufacturer in 2002 but passed on the opportunity.
Financing: Once the decision was made to sell machines with known but fixable
problems, cash flow from sales went not into product development but to pay for
repairs and to parts vendors. New venture capital and ACOA funding, while
substantial, was consistently delayed, and as a result much of the money raised paid
for bills instead of new business investments. Obtaining venture capital, and the due
diligence undertaken by venture capital firms, became a hindrance in itself. ?The
supply chain was financing our business,? says Power. Tight controls by Canadian VC
firms precluded a financial buffer to cover unexpected manufacturing problems, even
in the first two rounds. The perception was that ACOA and the venture capitalists
working with the company were too risk averse and needed to take a much longer-
term view of the business.
Management: Technology entrepreneurs excel at identifying markets for new
products but typically lack the management experience to know ?what they don?t
know.? In Micro-Optics? case, the initial leadership team seemed reluctant to seek
outside management help to cope with manufacturing problems and cash flow
issues that threatened the company. And although finding bright engineers trained
in Atlantic Canada?s universities was relatively easy, it was more challenging to locate
managers of engineers in the region. ?Running the manufacturing operation around
the clock,? says Power, ?was simply not sustainable.? Moncton needs to find ways to
attract experienced mid- to senior-level management to the area for its technology
firms, perhaps though provincial tax incentive programs and relocation grants.
FINANCIAL CAPITAL AND STYLES OF VENTURE DEVELOPMENT: POLICY IMPLICATIONS
For economic development on a regional scale, it is critical to make financial capital
available for entrepreneurial business growth. In order to maximize regional resources, it is
15 Mr. Denis Lanteigne, Atlantic Innovation Fund, interview of July 30, 2006.
43
Report B
important to provide a coordination of investment programs across the spectrum of the
company business life cycle. In addition to examining a company?s internal management
strength, it is crucial to recognize its place in the business life cycle to determine both its
qualifications and the need for capital investment. Sources of capital that are not mutually
exclusive can be coordinated as a matter of policy in a way that enables appropriate financial
support for high tech companies as they transition through consecutive stages of their
business development.
Government policy and civic agenda show commitment to regional development by providing
an explicit and accessible financial infrastructure for entrepreneurial investment.
Burgeoning companies will contribute to economic growth when provided:
? commercial credit from suppliers and customers
? government-sponsored grants and direct loans
? corporate investors to partner with new companies in exchange for equity
? institutional loans by banks and other financial institutions
? angel investors (both individuals and groups)
? traditional venture capital equity investment by institutional investors
Varied financial capital resources provided across time will provide companies with the
greatest support, and consequently the greatest leverage of the region?s available financial
resources for economic growth. Sources for capital should not act independently, but in
harmony. For example, in the case of the Moncton region, investments made by the
Business Development Bank of Canada ? a crown corporation of the Federal government
that provides both business loans and venture capital ? would increase its investment
performance through better communication and coordination with other banking and venture
capital sources in the area.
A closer view of Moncton?s financial capital resources is presented for:
? institutional venture capital investment
? angel and individual investment
? government investment mechanisms including ACOA and IRAP
? bank loans and self-funding
Venture Capital Institutional Investment
Venture capital (VC) is the equity or equity-linked investment in young, privately-held
companies, where the investor is a financial intermediary who typically is active as a director,
advisor and/or manager of the investment firm.16
Table 1 summarizes total institutional investments of venture capital made in the tri-city
Moncton region (Moncton, Dieppe, and Riverview) between 1999 and 2005. This seven-
year period shows a total of 13 VC investments placed in new ventures. The average rate of
VC investment has been two per year, except for 2004 in which there were three
investments. The total amount of VC investment in the Moncton region per capita is not
large, relative to other cities in Atlantic Canada. The majority of VC investment in New
Brunswick occurs in Fredericton, most likely because of its history of successful
entrepreneurial VC investment17. The sources of venture capital in Moncton shows a skewed
16 Kortum, Samuel and Josh Lerner. (2000). Assessing the Contribution of Venture Capital to Innovation. RAND
Journal of Education. Vol. 31, No. 4, Winter 2000. pp. 674-692.
17 Data for this section kindly provided by Mr. Michael Arbow, New Brunswick Security Commission.
44
Report B
pattern, with only two firms making 7 of the 13 VC investments; further, these two firms
merged in 2005.
Table 1: Venture Capital Investment in Moncton18
CDN$
(1000s)
Firm
Industry ? Sector
Lead Investor
Firm stage
8,355 Micro Optic Design med dev: Precision lens mfg ACF Equity Early
7,500 Spielo Gaming: automated lottery Finova ? KPMG Expansion
400 Custom Assemblies Mfg La Societe Investissment Expansion
5,259 Micro Optic Design med dev: precision lens mfg CDP Expansion
8,327 Micro Optic Design med dev: precision lens mfg ACF Equity Expansion
5,000 Whitehill Technologies Software Longitude Fund Start-up
10,433 Micro Optic Design med dev: precision lens mfg ACF Equity Expansion
1,592 Micro Optic Design med dev: precision lens mfg ACF Equity Expansion
Advanced Lodging consumer ? motel Growthworks Early
771 Motion-Fab ophthalmic lenses ACF Equity Start-up
700 Nanoptix mfg ? thermal printers Growthworks Early
4,100 Whitehill Technologies Software Growthworks Early
72 Chatham Biotech Biopharma NBIF Start-up
The pattern of VC investment has also been skewed toward one company, Micro Optics,
which took 5 out of the total 13 VC investments for a total of $34 million (all figures are in
Canadian dollars unless indicated), or 72 percent out of $53 million invested during the
period. In addition to VC investment, Micro Optic Design also received financial support from
other third-party sources including ACOA (CDN $6million). It is estimated that in total, Micro
Optic Design raised more $50 million before it ceased operations in 2003 (see the case
study, p. 40).19
The fact that approximately 72 percent of the total $53 million VC investment in the Moncton
region was invested in a single company over a seven-year period is of critical importance;
Micro Optic Design was ultimately a failed investment. Whether or not it was a seemingly
wise investment of funds at the time is not the issue; however, of critical importance to policy
makers is whether the region as a whole was aware of the narrowly targeted investment
decisions that were made to the exclusion of other potential new company candidates. In
the past ten years, various Moncton government entities have provided a number of regional
policy and economic assessments; and while all of those reported high or superior strength
in a number of sectors in the ICT industry, none of those assessments identified the medical
device sector as one of the most promising. When two-thirds of available capital over a
seven-year period has been dedicated to a niche outside the region?s economic strengths,
the question remains whether the region as a whole is well served. On the other hand,
successful VC investment stories are not absent in Moncton. Very successful business cases
include Spielo, Whitehill, Nanoptix, and Motion-Fab.
Spielo, a designer, manufacturer and distributor of gaming technology solutions, was
founded in 1990. In 1999 Spielo received its first round of VC investment ($7.5 million) from
Finova-KMPG. Spielo currently is a wholly owned subsidiary of GTECH Corporation and has
over 300 employees in Moncton. (See complete Case Study, page 118.)
18 Compiled from the Thompson Macdonald database that has tracked VC investments in North America since
1995. Data not independently verified. This data is available to the subscribers of the database.
19 Mr. Denis Lanteigne, from the Atlantic Innovation Fund (an ACOA program), interview of July 31, 2006.
45
Report B
U.S. Venture Capital Investments, 1995-2005
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
To
ta
l V
C
In
ve
st
m
en
t,
$B
% 1st Stagel % 2nd Stage % 3rd Stage
% 4th Stage Total VC Invst. $B
Whitehill Technologies, a software company, was founded in 1997. The main source of start-
up capital was the founder?s personal resources. The firm had some major U.S. sales
successes early in its lifecycle, and was able to finance operations primarily through
revenues. By year 1999, the company had about 40 employees. Its first round of VC
investment was made in 2001 by Latitude Partners, with another round in 2004 by
Growthworks. By 2001 (time of the first round of VC investment), Whitehill Technologies?
workforce had grown to approximately 50 full-time employees20. ?As an entrepreneur,
bootstrapping is a great teacher, because you immediately need to generate revenue,? said
current chief operating office Steve Palmer.21 (See complete Case Study, page 39.)
Nanoptix, provider of thermal direct printers, was founded in 1996 and received its first
round of VC investment in 2004. (See complete Case Study, page 85.)
Motion-Fab Ltd. was established in January 2004 to provide vertically integrated IT solutions
encompassing custom design engineering services, prototyping, manufacturing/assembly
processes, and after-delivery support for electromechanical and automation solutions.
Motion-Fab received its first round of VC investment in 2004, from Growthworks.
International Venture Capital Patterns
The pattern of VC investment in Moncton is not identical to VC investment patterns in the
U.S., but understanding the U.S. experience could prove to be useful for future VC
investments in Moncton, since the U.S. venture capital industry has been a world leader, and
its performance often preludes similar patterns in other parts of the world. Data in Figure 6
reveals a bell-shaped curve for total U.S. VC investment of about USD$20 billion in 1998,
peaking to about USD$105 billion in 2000 and then receding back again to about USD$20
Figure 6. USA VC Investment Patterns 1995-200522
20 Data for this section kindly provided by Ms. Lynne Reid, Whitehill Technologies Media Relations Specialist.
21 Interview of Steve Palmer, Whitehill Technologies.
22 From PricewaterhouseCoopers Money Tree Database.
46
Report B
billion in 2002 during the infamous dot com boom-and-bust phenomenon. Total VC
investment has remained flat since 2002.
The data?s critical pattern reveals that between 1995 and 2005 overall VC investment
shifted from first stage to fourth stage investments. The shifting patterns of venture capital
investments since 1995 have drastic implications for the business development of new
ventures that require a high level of initial financial capital. The data implies that the U.S.
venture capital industry has a tendency to invest in mature (fourth stage) businesses.
Competition for VC is more intense, and early-stage capital investment is especially more
difficult to acquire.
The resulting trend is clear: regional economies will suffer if they rely on VC investments in
high-tech start-up companies that require large initial financial infusions, in lieu of self-
funded companies that do not require large preliminary budgets for technology development
and business organization.
Leading VC institutional investors in the Moncton region
The five most prominent VC institutional investors in the Moncton region are Atlantic Venture
Fund (ACF), the New Brunswick Innovation Foundation, the Business Development Bank of
Canada, the New Brunswick Investment Management Corporation, and Roynat Capital,
although none of these firms have local Moncton offices.
Atlantic Venture Fund (ACF): ACF is an Atlantic Canadian ?labor-sponsored investment fund,?
following a uniquely Canadian method for raising venture capital resources. 23 ACF funds
invest across the Atlantic Provinces to support the growth of emerging businesses. Investors
in Atlantic Canada benefit from up to 70 percent tax savings on their investments. Residents
of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, and Labrador may purchase investment with
both a federal and provincial tax credit, while residents of Prince Edward Island (PEI) receive
only federal tax credit. Between 1996 and 2006, about $400 million has been invested in
Atlantic Canada, mostly in technology-based businesses including IT, advanced
manufacturing, and software spin-out companies24. Between 1996 and 2006, ACF invested
approximately $60-70 million, and the company has taken co-investment positions with
other Canadian sources for a total of about $130 million. ACF?s current investment is about
$30 million. ACF recently appointed a resident investment manager in a Fredericton office
but has no presence in Moncton.
The New Brunswick Innovation Foundation (NBIF): NBIF is a non-profit government-owned
organization that stimulates innovation as a means of improving productivity and growing the
knowledge-based economy in New Brunswick. With a $35 million pool of capital to invest
from the Province, NBIF makes investments in research and development and early-stage
companies in New Brunswick. NBIF?s three main funds are a venture capital fund (VCF), an
enterprise innovation fund (EIF), and a seed equity fund (SEF). NBIF?s portfolio at present
23 In some respects ACF is comparable to American mutual funds. In the U.S., investors who contribute to venture
capital funds (usually in the role of limited partners) are typically large institutions with massive amounts of
available capital, such as state and private pension funds, university endowments, insurance companies, and
pooled investment vehicles.
24 Interview of Mr. Peter Forton, Senior Vice President, Growthworks.
47
Report B
includes nine companies with five in Fredericton, three in St. John, and two in Moncton
(Chatham Biotech and Vimsoft).
The Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC): BDC is a financial institution wholly
owned by the federal government of Canada. BDC delivers venture capital, loans, and
consulting services to Canadian small businesses, with a particular focus on the technology
and export sectors of the economy. BDC Venture Capital is the venture capital arm of BDC,
which invests in all stages of a company's development cycle, from seed through expansion,
with a focus on technology-based businesses that have high growth potential and that are
positioned to become dominant players in their markets. BDC Venture Capital has an office
in Halifax with responsibility for Moncton, but so far it has made no investments in Moncton.
BDC representatives believe that there are adequate financial resources in Atlantic Canada
but a lack of technical talent and science-based new technologies 25.
The New Brunswick Investment Management Corporation: NBIMC is the trustee and
investment manager for the pension assets of approximately 45,000 members of the Public
Service, Teachers?, and Judges? pension plans with assets totaling $7 billion in 2005. NBIMC
has been inactive in Moncton.
Roynat Capital (RC): RC is a member of the Scotiabank Group, a Canadian merchant bank.
RC concentrates on longer term capital investment for mid-sized and high-growth firms with
sales between $5 million and $200 million. This segment is rare in the Moncton region, and
RC has been inactive in Moncton.
Why hasn?t Moncton attracted a larger amount of venture capital investment? In interviews,
venture capital representatives describe a shortage of experienced technology managers
familiar with nurturing VC-funded ventures. On the other hand, in the eyes of more risk-
averse public institutional investors such as the Business Development Bank of Canada,
sufficient capital is considered to exist in Atlantic Canada, but the region has a shortage of
technology talent and entrepreneurial ideas in which to invest. These viewpoints perhaps
have limited merit, but the larger problem appears to be an unwillingness of both private and
public institutional investors to invest in early-stage ventures.
Individual Investors and Angels
Individual Investors (Angel Investors) are defined as ?individual accredited? investors who
typically invest personal capital in fledgling businesses in exchange for ownership equity. As
a matter of law26, according to Canadian regulations, an individual accredited investor is: (1)
An individual whose net income before taxes exceeded $200,000 in each of the two most
recent calendar years or whose net income before taxes combined with that of a spouse
exceeded $300,000 in each of the two most recent calendar years and who, in either case,
reasonably expects to exceed that net income level in the current calendar year; (2) An
individual who, either alone or with a spouse, has net assets of at least $5 million; (3) A
person, other than an individual or investment fund, that has net assets of at least $5 million
as shown on his most recently prepared financial statements.?27
25 Telephone interview of Mr. Tony Van Bommel, Director of Advanced Technologies BDC, on August 17, 2006.
26 The legal distinction has tax ramification and separates habitual investors that may take part in their family and
friends ventures and in this study are classified under the personal resources of entrepreneurs.
27 There are comparable laws in the U.S. The federal securities laws define the term accredited investor in Rule
501 of Regulation D as: 1) natural person who has individual net worth, or joint net worth with the person?s
spouse, that exceeds $1 million at the time of the purchase; 2) a natural person with income exceeding
$200,000 in each of the two most recent years or joint income with a spouse exceeding $300,000 for those
48
Report B
Unlike venture capitalists, who manage the pooled money of third parties in a professionally
managed fund, angel investors rely on their own assets for investment; self-motivated, they
often prefer to keep out of the spotlight (having already achieved a high degree of success in
their own right). Angel investors are often motivated by the psychic return of helping mentor
young entrepreneurs; although the potential for profitability is paramount.
Individual investors may have preference for particular styles of venture development. Some
operate like small venture capitalists; they seek new ventures that follow an aggressive
growth style of development with clear and fast exit strategies. Others look for new ventures
that follow patterns of organic growth with longer term objectives. In the most cost-effective
situations, individual investors are organized into angel networks to share market analyses
and pool investment capital. All parties benefit from such an arrangement.
Based on estimations28, there are about ten yearly angel investments in Moncton, each one
about $30,000. There are reports that financially well-resourced individuals in Moncton
invest independently, but these individual investments are not easily traceable. A strong
need exists to identify and network these independently acting angel investors. In the
Moncton region there is no recognized network of individual investors.
First Angel Network (FAN): FAN, located in Halifax and established in 2005, is a network to
link individual investors in Atlantic Canada including Moncton. FAN consists of about 60
individual angel investors who all are residents of Atlantic Canada. The Network has to date
funded three rounds of investment with two different companies. Applicant entrepreneurs
are required to pay a fee (currently $3000) for each presentation. In Atlantic Canada,
individual angel investors usually have a business background in manufacturing, and thus
may feel uncomfortable with placing investments in IT29.
Government Agencies
Government agencies stimulate regional economic development by both direct and indirect
financial incentives through the Atlantic Canada Opportunity Agency (ACOA) and NRC-IRAP
(the National Research Council-Industrial Research Assistance Program).
The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency ACOA is the lead federal government agency
responsible for regional economic development in Atlantic Canada, including New Brunswick,
Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador. ACOA's strategic
priorities include: cultivating a climate of entrepreneurship; developing market and trade
opportunities; promoting tourism and innovation; and encouraging human resource
development and best management practices. ACOA's approach to regional development is
defined by the need to develop policies tailored to Atlantic Canada's opportunities and
challenges.30 Because of political realities, vigilant advocacy is necessary to influence
federal decision-making to promote Atlantic positions and interests.
ACOA's core mission is focused on strategic priorities that include innovation, community
development and infrastructure, trade and investment, business skills and entrepreneurship,
years and a reasonable expectation of the same income level in the current year.
(http://www.sec.gov/answers/accred.htm).
28 Interview, Mr. Ross Finlay, First Angel Network, on August 4, 2006.
29 Comment based on the interview of Mr. Peter Forton on August 8, 2006.
30 Dennis Wallace, President of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA), at a C.D. Howe Institute policy
roundtable held in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on February 18, 2003. Source: http://www.acoa-
apeca.gc.ca/e/about/regdev.shtml
49
Report B
and access to capital for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). ACOA also delivers a
range of federal initiatives directed at specific economic needs and adjustment challenges
facing the Atlantic region, including infrastructure projects. ACOA not only provides financial
resources, it is predisposed to specific views on the process of innovation and development.
The purpose of this section is not to evaluate ACOA?s performance, but to examine potential
impacts of ACOA investments in the Moncton region. Total ACOA expenditures in Atlantic
Canada and ACOA expenditures in the Moncton region (for years 2002 and 2003) are
summarized in Tables 2 and 3.
The two tables illustrate how the patterns of total ACOA expenditures in Atlantic Canada and
in Moncton are distinct, which is likely due to Moncton?s relatively advanced economy
compared to the average urban area in the rest of Atlantic Canada. Table 3 demonstrates
that almost all (97 percent) of ACOA expenditures in Moncton in 2002 and 2003 ($32.2
million) went to two programs: the Atlantic Innovation Fund ($16.6 million) and the Business
Development Program ($14.4 million). The average AIF award in Moncton was $3.3 million,
and the average BDP award was $257,000.
Table 2: Total ACOA Expenditures (in Atlantic Canada) - 2002-200331
Description (100,000s CDN$) % of Total
Direct Support to Business 97.6 27.0
Indirect Support to Business 59.4 16.4
Adjustment Programs 4.6 4.6
Infrastructure Canada 39.5 10.9
Federal Provincial Cooperation Agreements 32.0 8.9
Atlantic Innovation Fund - AIF 25.1 6.9
Strategic Community Investment Fund 22.4 6.2
Trade, Tourism, Invest, and Entrepreneurship & Business Skills 19.1 5.3
Community Economic Development 9.4 2.6
Other 40.5 11.2
Total 349.6 100
Table 3. ACOA Expenditures in Moncton - 2002-200332
Description
(CDN$) % of
Total
No. of
Cases
Average
Investment
Atlantic Innovation Fund -AIF $ 16,606,090 52% 5 $ 3,321,218
Business Development Program - BDP $ 14,415,328 45% 56 $ 257,417
Entrepreneurship & Skills Development $ 813,451 3% 11 $ 73,950
Community Investment Fund $ 197,612 1% 4 $ 49,403
Trade, Tourism and Investment $ 197,612 1% 5 $ 39,522
Total $ 32,230,093
31 Source: ACOA documents and ACOQW web site: http://www.acoa-apeca.gc.ca/e/about/regdev.shtml
32 Source: ACOA documents and ACOQW web site: http://www.acoa-apeca.gc.ca/e/about/regdev.shtml
50
Report B
The Atlantic Innovation Fund ?AIF: Through the AIF, ACOA provides direct investments to
increase research and development in the public and private sectors, although ACOA does
not concentrate only on R&D. Tables 4 and 5 summarize AIF activity in Moncton.
Table 4. All AIF Non-Commercial Grants to Academic Institutions
Proponent Name and Project Description Funding CDN $000,000
Concept + Inc.
Create generic electronic circuit boards for new product development (2002)
$1.2
Institut de recherche m?dicale Beaus?jour
Medical biotechnology innovation (2001)
$6
Universit? de Moncton
Advanced optics: materials, devices and applications (2002)
$5
Universit? de Moncton
Design/development of innovative thin film smart systems (2003)
$2.7
Universit? de Moncton
SynergiC3: E-learning productivity enhancement framework
$2.9
Total $17.8
Table 5. All AIF Commercial Grants to Private Organizations
Proponent Name and Project Description Funding (CDN$ 000,000s)
Micro Optics Design Corporation (founded in 1993)
Advanced ophthalmic lens design (2002)
$6
Apex Industries Inc. (Founded in 1961)
High velocity machining of monolithic structures
$5.5
Spielo Manufacturing Incorporated (founded in 1990)
Mercury project to build I-link product ( 2001)
$1.9
Whitehill Technologies Inc. (founded in 1997)
Applied development tool for industry specific web-based portals (2004)
$2.8
Total $15.7
Business Development Program (BDP): BDP provides interest free loans for business start-
ups and modernizations, new technology adoption, software & prototype development,
management training, and marketing and export development. BDP targets business
investments that do not meet the preferred client profiles of commercial lenders. Based on
a list provided by ACOA, between 2001 and 2005 Moncton businesses that received
financial support under the BDP program includes 129 cases, totaling $24.7 (46 percent of
total). The average investment in each case was $190,000.
Strategic Community Investment Fund: Based on a list provided by ACOA, 129 Moncton
awards were made under the BDP program between 2001 and 2005, totaling $24.7 (46
percent of total). The average investment in each case was $190,000.
51
Report B
Entrepreneurship and Business Skills Development Partnership (EBSDP): The $59.6-million
EBSDP is designed to increase the number of Atlantic Canadians choosing to start a
business and to improve the ability of existing businesses to compete and grow successfully.
It has three key elements: Innovation Skills Development Initiative; Women in Business
Initiative; and Young Entrepreneur Development Initiative. From October 2002 to March 31,
2003, the Entrepreneurship and Business Skills Development Partnership approved over $9
million in assistance toward 125 projects. A breakdown for monies invested in Moncton is
not immediately available; some of these awards were for publications projects to benefit
Atlantic Canada as a whole, while others were placed with individual SME applicants.
The Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (ATIP): ATIP strengthens the export
performance of the Atlantic region by developing and enhancing export markets, export
activities; and foreign direct investment in the region. Based on a list provided by ACOA,
between 2001 and 2005 in Moncton 17 awards were made under the ATIP program, totaling
$1 million. The average investment in each case was $59,500.
Seed Capital Program (SCP): SCP provides business skills training and loans to start,
expand, or improve a small business. A maximum of $20,000 is available per applicant in
the form of a repayable, unsecured personal loan with flexible interest and repayment terms.
A maximum of $2,000 is available per applicant for specialized training and business
counseling. As a result, the scope of the program is relatively small.
ACOA disburses about $15 million per year in Moncton and is the most important source of
financial capital in the Moncton region. ACOA has been active in supporting the
?development? stage of R&D projects (through the Atlantic Innovation Fund) as well as
providing support for existing businesses through its Business Development Program.
ACOA?s Seed Capital Program, because of its limited scope, has not been as active in
supporting new ventures.
Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP) is a program of the National Research
Council, the Canadian government?s main organization for funding research and
development. IRAP concentrates on providing a combination of technical and business-
oriented advisory services along with financial support to its targeted enterprises. It consists
of approximately 230 ?Industrial Technology Advisors? across Canada, including 3 in
Moncton and 8 in other locations in New Brunswick. IRAP provides non-repayable grants in
seed and start-up stages and technical advice for business development to fledgling
companies. It is estimated that IRAP injects about $20 million capital into Atlantic Canada.33
IRAP financial contributions are based on cost sharing and matching funds are required.
Bank Loans
While Venture Capitalists seek equity in return for investment, banks offer the alternative of
debt financing: a key mechanism in business start-up and growth. In Canada, commercial
banks are the main source of business loans -- usually asset-based requiring collateral to
secure the debt. Collateral may comprise a company's equipment, real estate, accounts
receivable, and inventory, whereby the lender takes a first priority security interest in those
assets financed.
Major Canadian commercial banks such as Royal Bank, Canadian Imperial Bank (CIBC),
Bank of Nova Scotia, TD Bank, and Business Development Bank (BDC) provide asset-based
33 Source: Mr. William Langely, interviewed on August 20, 2006
52
Report B
commercial loans through the Canada Small Business Financing (CSBF) Program that is the
funding program applicable to new ventures, which provides financing up to $250,000 for
the establishment, expansion and improvement of small businesses.
The CSBF program supports the purchase of buildings, equipment and renovation of existing
businesses or the purchase of new business provided they operate in Canada. The program
is delivered to the banking customer by financial institutions on behalf of Industry Canada.
To obtain a loan, the applicant must present a business proposal directly to the financial
institution. Lenders are required to apply the same care and procedures in making a CSBF
loan as they would for conventional loans of similar amounts. The decisions of where to
grant these loans rest entirely with the lender; Industry Canada does not participate in the
decision-making process of granting loans under the Program. When a loan is approved, the
lender forwards the complete application with a cheque for the 2 percent registration fee to
Industry Canada34. The rate of interest is prime plus 3 percent.
Since the CSBF Program is asset-based, it is difficult for knowledge-based firms that rely on
intellectual capital, and without sales records, to qualify for CSBFP loans. ?The
Comprehensive Review of the CSBFP Program? performed by Industry Canada35 indicates
that: ?a working capital ?gap? exists in small business financing and that working capital
needs are growing relative to the needs for fixed asset financing. The concentration of the
CSBFP on fixed asset financing makes the program particularly unsuitable for financing
knowledge-based businesses that typically lack fixed assets and have a greater need for
working capital. It has been suggested that either the CSBFP be expanded to include
working capital financing or a separate program be established to guarantee working capital
loans based on guidelines other than the current CSBFP program. Whether or not CSBFP will
proceed to implement the policy concerns that the Comprehensive Review indicates remain
to be seen.
Self-Funded Ventures
Self-funding, or ?bootstrapping,? involves starting a new business with little or no external
funding. Compared to equity-financed ventures, self-funded ventures tend to grow slower in
the early stages of venture development. However, the ability of self -funded ventures to
initiate and sustain growth with a moderate amount of initial capital makes it possible for
self-funded firms to form during periods when external capital is scarce. Furthermore, self-
funded firms absorb less available capital accessible in an economic region and tend to
leverage those funds with less risk. Due to shortage of VC funding and bank loans, the
majority of new knowledge-based ventures in Moncton need to rely on self-funding.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The indication is that the Atlantic region can absorb more investment funds if the financial
resources have been formed and are available to institutional investors. Organizational
investors receive their funds from public resources such as personal or institutional
retirement plans. The existing patterns of capital formation define the future patterns of
capital investment. Accordingly it is recommended that the different tiers of government
active in Moncton facilitate the process of capital formation through tax incentive policies.
34 Data for this section kindly provided by Ayoub Najah: CSBFP
35 http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/incsbfp-pfpec.nsf/en/la00210e.html
53
Report B
While the ACOA Seed Capital Program was established to serve small start-ups, in Moncton
there are no existing programs that target the development of self-funded, fast-growth
?Gazelle? ventures (i.e. those that begin as self-funded companies with a business plan that
envisions fast growth after the business case is proven). Regional development strategies
need to identify and support Gazelle ventures, due to their key role in growing a technology-
based economy and new jobs.
In Moncton, there is insufficient financial capital is available to sustain the existing pipeline
of R&D projects. The New Brunswick Innovation Fund and ACOA?s Atlantic Innovation Fund
are exemplary cases of agencies that promote R&D-based new technology companies.
However, as discussed earlier, both the shortage of venture capital and limited governance
expertise for express-path ventures, seem to downplay t economic development based on
R&D for the short- and mid-term.
Self-Funded Ventures
Support for self-funded ITC ventures should be a priority. Moncton companies like Spielo,
Whitehill Technologies, Ardent Development Solutions, BMG Consultants, Vimsoft, and
others are all examples of successful self-funded Gazelle ventures. Institutionally, steps
should be taken to facilitate the stream of initial capital and credit needed by self-funded
ventures. Support should be specifically provided for the development of knowledge-based
Gazelle-type ventures, perhaps including the formation of a ?Moncton Gazelle ventures
Network? or similar advocacy organization to coordinate funding possibilities and networking
for fast-growth companies in Moncton.
Loans
Guidelines for the Canada Small Business Financing (CSBF) Program should be adjusted to
provide support for knowledge-intensive new businesses in information technology and
knowledge-based industries. Elements of the U.S. Small Business Development program,
which provides business advice and business consulting services, should also be considered.
The New Brunswick Liberal Party platform that secured the September 2006 election
promised that the new government will provide start-up capital of up to $100,000 for new
businesses and up to $60,000 for business expansion and diversification. If implemented,
such loans may be used to support new technology-based organic growth ventures in
Moncton.
Government Agencies
A public initiative should be undertaken to provide matchmaking services between
entrepreneurs and funding sources.
Individual (Angel) Investment Network
Moncton angels should be encouraged to organize into a network, focused to support the
technologies that are consistent with the regional development of Moncton. Angel networks
in Silicon Valley, Boston, and Austin are often initiated by a few individual investors with the
experience and willingness to mentor other angels in their investor role. Moncton is home to
many wealthy individuals and families, some of whom could act as the core for an angel
investor network. Cross-networking an angel investor network with the Gazelle
entrepreneur?s advocacy organization should increase the region?s start-up business synergy;
and could include workshops to help entrepreneurs with business plan presentations, etc.
54
Report B
Institutional Investment
Since capital must be ?pooled? before it can be ?invested,? a longer term plan is needed.
Cooperation with both Federal and Provincial governments will be required to enhance
existing venture capital pools generated by public tax-deductible retirement funds.
Institutional investment firms should be encouraged to establish permanent offices in
Moncton since institutional investors have a tendency to invest in geographic areas in the
proximity of their offices. Office space for VCs should be arranged free of charge at the
proposed incubator. Organize existing VC managerial talent into mentor councils, and
enlarge local VC networks to interact with experienced VC managers outside the Moncton
area to assist with practical advice that will help facilitate regional deal flow.
A longer term project to form cooperation between the sources of investment capital in the
Moncton region is strongly encouraged. To precipitate the further development and
deployment of VC capital in Moncton, deliberate steps should be taken to create a venue for
information sharing among sources of capital. With the understanding that VC firms
compete for the best investment prospects, such coordination among firms would mine
efficiencies of scale, avoid duplication of effort, consolidate expertise, and potentially lower
administrative costs.
CENTRAL TEXAS ANGEL NETWORK: A POSITIVE MODEL
?The Central Texas Angel Network is a not-for-profit corporation dedicated to providing
quality early-stage investment opportunities for accredited Central Texas angel investors,
and to assisting, educating and connecting early stage growth companies in Central Texas
with information and advisors for the purpose of raising money and assisting in their growth?
(www.centexangels.org).
In order to bring better organization to Austin?s informal angel network community, a few
local champions joined the Houston Angel Network (HAN) and attended their monthly
meetings to get ideas for forming a similar angel network in Austin. Indeed, they found that
one third of the companies presenting to HAN were located in Austin. These champions
adapted Houston?s format to the realities of Austin and formed the not-for-profit Central
Texas Angel Network (CTAN) for entrepreneurs and angels.
Today, they welcome all excellent entrepreneurial business ideas (including real estate,
energy ventures, etc) and do not limit themselves to technology-based start-ups. They
realized that considerable wealth has been created by Austin companies that did not rest on
technology-based IP, such as Whole Foods, GSDM Advertising, and even Dell Inc. In addition,
they did not appreciate the ?in-club? or ?we are the best and brightest? mentality often
exhibited by technology entrepreneurs. Accordingly, they focused their angel recruitment
efforts on seasoned and successful businesspeople, not just technology leaders. They
invited 40 potential angels and 30 have accepted the invitation to date. Members are
required to sign an SEC Accredited Investor form and pay an annual Fee of $1,500 (to
discourage membership by service providers). These fees provide a salary for CTAN?s part-
time Executive Director, and cover food and drink for meetings. Board members provide a
place to meet. The group decided to meet four times a year rather than monthly, and
instituted the following process of operation:
? The funding range of the Angel Network is $200,000 to $3 million.
55
Report B
? The group only considers companies that are Texas-based, with a preference for
Austin-centric ventures.
? About 15 companies apply for funding each quarter. They are asked to write a one-
page summary and include a fee of $250. A one-page PDF file for each company is
emailed to the CTAN membership, who are invited to share this information with their
colleagues and friends. As the Chair emphasized, ?Information dissemination
promotes a democratic as opposed to a secretive culture. It also helps get the word
out about companies that aren?t selected to present.?
? Select CTAN angels volunteer to provide additional due diligence on a company(ies)
of particular interest to them, as needed.
A Screening Meeting is held, in which CTAN members briefly discuss all the candidates and
vote to establish the top four ventures. The leaders of these four companies are invited the
CTAN quarterly meeting, where they may present for 15 minutes and respond to a 5 minute
Q&A session. CTAN members have the opportunity to arrange further meetings with the
entrepreneur and perhaps elect to invest in the venture; these negotiations are confidential.
CASE STUDY: Vimsoft Inc.
Interview with Mitch Manuel, President, Founder, and Chief Executive Officer
Vimsoft Inc. was founded in Moncton by software programmer Mitch Manuel in
December 2003. The company has developed a novel programming method to
efficiently create equipment asset management programs for its customers. Their
client focus is primarily in the broadcasting industry, and the company was recently
able to secure a long term contract with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
(CBC).
Background
Manuel, a former Spielo employee, was able to obtain preliminary funding from his
family and friends and take advantage of a provincial tax benefit for private capital
investments. With these funds and early revenues, Manuel hired two employees (a
software developer with whom he had worked at Spielo, and a product manager with
35 years of business experience). Together, they developed a suite of customizable
programs named ?VimBiz,? that enables companies to efficiently manage their
business processes and assets. The programs also track asset locations and service
requests in order to protect company value and to analyze precise carrying costs and
costs of ownership.
Assets and Challenges
The low cost of living in Moncton makes it easier to recruit and retain technically
advanced employees since they require lower salaries than in other Canadian cities.
Additionally, Moncton has hundreds of qualified programmers working in the city, so
if Vimsoft?s demand for technical talent expands, Manuel believes he could easily fill
these positions. However, government programs will only help finance the hiring of
an employee that is either unemployed or underemployed. If a start-up company like
Vimsoft wants to hire a qualified and experienced programmer, that programmer is
most likely currently employed, and the cost of hiring an employee away from another
company is too high for a start-up. "Finding a qualified programmer who is
underemployed or unemployed is rare," says Manuel.
56
Report B
Another advantage in Moncton is that the technology sector is a small community in
which strong relationships can be developed. Vimsoft out sources its marketing and
graphic design requirements to local companies; and due to the strong ties he
developed working at Spielo, Manuel could quickly assemble a team on a contract
basis to expand his capacity.
Vimsoft found it difficult to obtain start-up capital from NRC-IRAP. When Vimsoft's
application was reviewed, Manuel was told that Vimsoft needed to have a larger
revenue base before it could receive IRAP support. The funding that Vimsoft needed,
however, was to develop the product that would generate its revenues. It had to look
elsewhere for these funds. Help arrived in February 2007 when Vimsoft obtained
venture capital financing from Technology Ventures Corporation and NBIF.
Lessons Learned
One of the biggest difficulties Vimsoft has faced as a young start-up is obtaining the
necessary capital to develop its product. With IRAP and bank loans unavailable
during Vimsoft's product development phase, it has been difficult to locate capital to
sustain operations. Its recent success in obtaining venture capital financing
underscores the regional need for seed-stage funding to be more accessible to young
start-up companies. Manuel obtained funding from family and friends by discussing
the tax benefits they would receive from both the province and the federal
government for investing capital funds in start-up commercial activity. Moncton could
implement a similar municipal tax benefit to supplement the provincial and national
programs.
Manuel commented that navigating the myriad government assistant programs for
start-ups can be confusing and frustrating. One ideal program would be a
centralized, one-stop office where companies can receive information about all the
programs and perhaps some consulting advice on which programs to which to apply.
The possibility of placing his company in an incubator would be appealing, in order to
receive management advice and assistance for his technology concepts while
pursuing a market opening.
CASE STUDY: InteliSys Aviation Systems, Inc.
Interview with Jock English, Chief Operating Officer and Vice President Sales and Marketing
InteliSys Aviation Systems, Inc. was founded in 1987 in Montreal by Chief Executive
Officer Ralph Eisenschmind. In 1999 it moved its headquarters to Shediac, NB,
which is about 30KM (17 miles) from Moncton. The company develops integrated
software packages for low-cost, mid-size, and regional airline carriers around the
world. InteliSys?s business growth has accelerated steadily since its formation,
though particularly since 2001. It has 18 full-time employees and annual revenues
of approximately $2 million. The third quarter of 2005 was its first positive profit
quarter, and it has continued to operate with positive net income since then.
Background
InteliSys has created an integrated operating system for small airlines. The system
centralizes all operating and database systems necessary for an airline based on its
flight schedule. Surprisingly, the devastation to the airline industry after September
11, 2001, initiated a strong growth period for the company. Prior to 9/11, Air
Canada had provided the majority of the operating system technology required for
57
Report B
the smaller regional airlines in the country. When the industry experienced financial
distress in the downturn, however, InteliSys was able to provide these companies
with their necessary technology infrastructure. A large percentage of the regional
airlines in Canada have adopted InteliSys' technology, though market penetration
was a slow and arduous process.
InteliSys has also focused its marketing in Saudi Arabia, China, and other areas of
Asia where it has successfully negotiated important contracts with smaller national
airlines. It has had a representative marketing its technology in China for 3 ? years,
and it recently completed a project to integrate many of the necessary features for
Asian travel into its computer system. This investment has the potential to yield
substantial returns in coming years.
Assets and Challenges
InteliSys Chief Operating Officer and Vice President of Sales and Marketing Jock
English cited Moncton?s high level of training and education as one of the area?s
primary assets. He feels that the education provided at NBCC-Moncton is excellent
and more than sufficient to prepare his employees for the technology job functions at
InteliSys. He estimates that about 90 percent of InteliSys employees were educated
at a college rather than a university. The education they have received, primarily at
NBCC-Moncton, is highly applied, and students complete their programs with strong
technical skills. Additionally, being able to employ students without educations from
large universities (who carry substantial student loan debts) allows InteliSys?s cost
structure to remain competitive.
One primary difficulty InteliSys has faced in its attempt to grow into a global
competitor in Moncton is access to reliable internet service. Though New Brunswick
was one of the first areas of Canada to install a wide network of fiber-optic lines in
the early 1970?s, service has become unreliable. Aliant, one of two ISP?s in Moncton,
owns nearly a monopoly of the fiber optic lines running through the city, so prices are
high, and English has had poor service experience. He recently experienced a
connection outage due to a firewall update error and was surprised to find little
response from Aliant representatives. ?They didn?t seem to understand that when
we?re down for 30 seconds, we are in big trouble. There is a line forming at an airline
counter somewhere halfway across the world and it?s because Aliant is down.?
Lessons Learned
Technology Collaborations: InteliSys is part of a wide network of technology
companies in the Moncton area. While there are numerous technological
organizations that bring these companies together, they lack unity. A leading
organization, with the influence to unite the numerous and diverse groups, would
enable more effective networking of technology professionals and strengthen the
industry in the area. The technology sector in Moncton has the potential to attract
significant amounts of talent if its strengths can be adequately united and publicized
through such organizations.
Infrastructure: English feels the current fiber optic infrastructure system is a major
impediment to business in Moncton. The installation of a fiber optic ring around the
city would be a minimal (approximately $1 million) investment that could quickly pay
for itself both directly (through usage fees) and indirectly (through increased
economic activity in the city). An alternative to the installation of an improved fiber
58
Report B
optic system may be to create a WiFi umbrella for downtown Moncton that could
provide reliable internet access to the business sector.
59
Report B
KEY OBJECTIVE 3: Foster Academic & Research Excellence
Foster academic and research excellence that is specifically linked to regional economic
development.
Regional excellence in research and education provides the long-term foundation to
accelerate economic development. Illustrations abound, including Stanford University and
Palo Alto, CA; MIT and Boston, MA; and the University of Texas at Austin, as well as less
famous universities and regions. Recruiting world-class faculty in targeted technologies
leads to greater funding from industry and government, recruitment of higher-quality
students, and increases company spinout activity from educational institutions, as it
enhances research and education excellence.
Vision:
To fully leverage and develop existing and emerging academic assets (research,
education, and training) that are key to accelerating the growth of established and
emerging technology-based industries in targeted, niche sectors.
Assets:
? Area R&D activities in the biosciences are a long-term asset and growing stronger
every year. In 2005 and 2006, over $750,000 in CIHR research funds was awarded
to Universit? de Moncton scholars; in addition, the Centre de Formation M?dicale du
N.B. initiated its four-year MD degree program in 2006 in Moncton, which increases
research capacity in the city and may pave the way for a medical school associated
with Universit? de Moncton.
? The Atlantic Cancer Research Center; research underway at both local hospitals; and
R&D groups at the Universit? de Moncton such as the Thin Films and Photonics
program have untapped commercialization potential.
? Moncton has a large representation of community and private colleges.
? Universit? de Moncton, the largest Francophone university in Atlantic Canada locally
educates bilingual engineers and scientists to help provide the region?s talent needs.
Universit? de Moncton reports that 89 percent of its full-time students are originally
from New Brunswick, 70 percent of its graduates reside in New Brunswick, and 80
percent work in the province.36
? Moncton has a number of nearby universities, such as UNB-Fredericton, that provide
excellent masters and doctoral programs in science and engineering fields.
Challenges:
? There is no major Anglophone university in Moncton, which contributes to a disparity
between the percentage of local Anglophone and Francophone workers with post-
secondary education.
? There is a need to foster shared vision and effort on targeted activities across
businesses, academic institutions, and local and provincial government leaders.
36 Data taken from interview with Daniel Grant, Universit? de Moncton Placement Officer.
60
Report B
? The entire Atlantic Region faces population decline. Numbers show that by the end
of the next decade, there will have been, spread over two decades, a 33 percent
decline in the number of high school graduates in New Brunswick alone.37 In the
long run, without increased immigration, this situation is likely to continue.38
? Universities in the province?with a few exceptions (e.g. University of New Brunswick
at Saint John)?are not attracting sufficient numbers of science and engineering
students from outside the NB province or from other countries.
Strategies:
? Support existing and emerging research and development centers as valuable
resources that create the ?seed corn? for future economic development.
? Establish academic-business ?Partnerships for Research Excellence? that will benefit
the larger community in terms of regional, national, and global perceptions that
Greater Moncton is committed and action-oriented, and that regional leaders work
cooperatively.
o Raise funds to endow faculty chairs at regional universities, in targeted industry
sector areas such as ICT, Gaming, Bioengineering, Computer Science,
Entrepreneurship and Commercialization.
o Recruit outstanding faculty that are likely to win competitive grants and recruit
outstanding students, especially in these targeted areas.
o Concentrate on building upon existing and emerging regional strengths, e.g., the
Thin Films and Photonics Research Group (GCMP) at the Universit? de Moncton.
? Develop a regional approach in Greater Moncton for specific clusters that links
academic and industry leaders, and fosters targeted growth through effective
recruitment.
o Greater Moncton has an emerging model in regional cooperation in biosciences
including Mount Allison, UNB, Universit? de Moncton, and the two Moncton Hospitals
and includes public-private sector support and leading-edge research, i.e. the Atlantic
Cancer Research Institute.
? Focus both on short-term objectives, which concentrate on the use of existing
knowledge and strength of existing assets; and longer-term objectives, which include
the creation of new, cutting-edge research and development that is a desirable
longer-term objective for the educational institutions.
Specific Actions:
? Pursue opportunities for greater alignment of post-secondary capacity in ICT with
regional industry needs, and encourage Universit? de Moncton, NBCC-CCNB, and
other post-secondary educational institutions to increase collaboration through
planned channels.
? Expand and clarify articulation agreements (community college-to-university, and
across universities) to encourage post-secondary educational enrollment, especially
among Anglophone students.
? Develop reliable math testing protocols at the school district level that fulfill two
characteristics: (1) they allow comparisons of math scores for both the Anglophone
37 This trend is explained, in part, by an aging population?the median age of the population in Moncton is 38
years old?and by the decline in the rates of growth of the young cohorts (ages 5-14 and 15-19).
38 Data provided by Dr. Richard Wiggers, Senior Policy Analyst, Post-Secondary Affairs, New Brunswick
Department of Education during interview on August 3, 2006.
61
Report B
and the Francophone population and (2) they can be compared with scores of
students in other cities in Canada and other industrialized countries.39 Increasing
Moncton?s sample size in the PISA test could be an effective way to address the
issue.
? Explore development of K-12 curriculum initiatives and youth training programs with
the participation of the ICT business community.
? Encourage more active participation of entrepreneurs on the Board of Directors for
the Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission (MPHEC) in the determination
of new programs to be initiated at universities in Atlantic Canada.
? Increase distance education opportunities, especially at the post-graduate level. The
continuing education of engineers and scientists is a necessary condition for the
growth of a knowledge-based industry in Moncton.
? Promote a campaign to matriculate more students into Moncton?s ICT and other
technology-based education/training programs.
The importance of having a college-educated workforce in a local economy cannot be
overemphasized. Worldwide, the most successful technology regions have regional
universities that graduate talent into the local economy. For Greater Moncton, the Universit?
de Moncton and CCNB-Dieppe are huge assets, and especially for Moncton?s Francophone
community. For Anglophone students, NBCC-Moncton, Mount Allison University, and Atlantic
Baptist University enjoy well-deserved reputations for excellence among both students and
employers. But the province?s post-secondary educational institutions need to do more to
raise the percentage of Greater Moncton workers with degrees in the sciences and
engineering, especially in the Anglophone community.
Develop Student Internships and Job Placement Opportunities
? Pilot test a variety of innovative ideas and approaches for improving student
placement with local employers. Better employer and student placement service
relationships and interactions are needed to achieve higher retention levels of
graduates and to facilitate co-op programs, between local employers and
undergraduates, that will build important ties between ?town and gown? before
students graduate.
? Develop technology-based education and training programs at the high-school level
to get students interested at an early age in ICT and engineering fields. Many of the
interviewees from the NB Department of Education noted that student interest in
trade skills was much higher than in ICT skills.
? Support college and university internships with companies in targeted industry
sectors to build ties with Moncton businesses early in students? educational
programs.
? Develop an internship program for high school students with local employers.
? Host job fairs for targeted industry sectors and regional universities.
? Develop and fund research and education workforce projects.
39 Moncton needs to sell an image to the international high-tech community that its educational system is among
the best in the world. In Austin, for instance, the Chamber of Commerce website advertises that Eanes and Round
Rock School Districts (where Dell Computer is located) in the Austin metropolitan area are rated ?gold medal,? the
highest of Expansion Magazine?s cost-performance category.
62
Report B
? Provide a brokering service to match employers seeking information on technology
available talent in targeted industry sectors.
? Recruit those who have moved away after graduation?the goal is to identify and
attract those individuals who moved away from Moncton for whatever reason.
? Develop campaigns to attract to the region the best students in science and
engineering from other provinces in Canada and from other countries.
? Increase international connections and exposure through student exchange in digital
media entrepreneurship. For example, an international exchange program is being
considered between Universit? de Moncton and France, IC? Institute and partners in
Poland and Portugal.
TALENT, EDUCAT ION & TRA IN ING
CASE STUDY: Ardent Development Solutions
Interview, Derek Hatchard, Founder and President
Ardent Development Solutions, established in 2004, is a software development,
consulting, and training firm in Moncton. Its most recent homegrown ?software as a
service? is Church Radius, a web-based church management software tool. Ardent
specializes in Microsoft technologies including .NET, SQL Server, and related
technologies. It has five full-time employees. Derek Hatchard, 29, is the founder and
president.
Background
A native of Nova Scotia, Hatchard completed his undergraduate degree at UNB
Fredericton and worked in the UNB incubator while he was a student, and then again
after graduation. He has completed graduate studies in computer science in
Toronto. He is a ?Microsoft Regional Director,? which means that he writes articles
and courseware for Microsoft, and has wide connections in Moncton?s software
community doing training and development in Microsoft products. At present,
Hatchard finances his company organically from sales and is reticent to take outside
funding.
Assets and Challenges
In an interview, Hatchard says that he co-locates his servers outside of New
Brunswick because he ?doesn?t feel confident in the backbone infrastructure in the
province? to trust his backups to local servers. Ardent has fiber optic lines in its
current building and had internet service from a local provider, but Hatchard
canceled it and switched to a cable modem to get faster download and upload times.
He still cannot run his production servers via either of the two local ISPs (Aliant and
Rogers) because they cannot guarantee him carrier-class up time. ?They are down
regularly five minutes per month,? he says.
Hatchard has had a difficult time finding qualified, experienced software developers
to hire locally. When he does find them, they are programmers who are moving back
to the area for family reasons. He cannot hire recently graduated programmers to
use for consulting jobs because they have insufficient experience.
The ?Workforce Expansion Program,? provided by the Department of Post-Secondary
Education has been a useful training program for Hatchard; it has paid for half of one
63
Report B
of his employee?s salaries for 40 weeks, allowing him to train the employee in his
business. In addition, he expects that his next two hires will come out of the National
Research Council?s Youth Internship Program, which provides a similar salary
supplement up to a maximum of $12,000.
Lessons Learned
Infrastructure---For young companies, office space is hard to find in Moncton. Start-
up companies need terms (low rates, short leases) that are difficult to accommodate
in the Moncton leasing environment. He has had great difficulty finding office space
for Ardent.
He feels that a new fiber ring around the city would be an enormously successful
infrastructure upgrade. Aliant and Rogers?s business packages are not flexible
enough to meet his needs. WiMax downtown would improve his competitiveness, but
connecting Ardent?s network (not just individual laptops) would be key, in order to
establish the company?s firewall. WiFi downtown would make Moncton ?more
comfortable? but is not essential to increasing productivity or business. Home
broadband access is fairly accessible but still expensive.
Talent---Moncton?s relatively low cost of living and high quality of life is a strong
attraction to entrepreneurs like Hatchard. He wanted a comfortable place to raise
his children and moved back to Moncton from Toronto to start his company. The low
cost of living in Moncton helps to keep employee salaries low, which cuts two ways: it
lowers his costs as a business owner but raises barriers to attracting qualified talent
from outside the area. Software programmers make $50,000-60,000 a year in
Moncton with 5 years? experience, $10,000-15,000 less than in Halifax. He also
sees more enthusiasm in the software space in Halifax, more talent there, and more
users of Ardent?s services. Tax incentives to bring talent to the province would be an
immediate help to him.
As a young entrepreneur, Hatchard still has many questions related to human
resources. He uses his network of colleagues in Moncton when he has questions,
but he would greatly benefit from training seminars on HR issues related to running a
business. Hatchard listens to a pod cast called ?Venture Voice? out of NYC for
entrepreneurial advice.
EDUCATION
Construction industries, call centers, and hospitals are the main employers in Moncton, and
these sectors demand workers with trade skills.40 Moncton?s secondary and post-secondary
educational systems have responded by training students with strong trade skills, and
accordingly, the provincial government has invested heavily in the community colleges?
trades-oriented programs. However, the city shows an increasing need for talent in
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) (including informatics and digital media)
and electronic gaming industries, and the skill set required by these industries is different
40 Statistics Canada classified 79 occupations as trade skills, including cabinetmaker, electric motor system
technician, electronic communication technician, electronics technician, plumber, motor vehicle body repairer,
meat-cutter, etc. These trade skills are highly demanded in the following sectors: electric and electronic, motor
vehicle and heavy equipment, metal fabricating, building and construction, and food and beverage services. See
www.transferableskills.com.
64
Report B
from the skill set that has previously been sufficient. These emerging industries require
workers with specialized ICT skills (technicians and university graduates) as well as project
managers, entrepreneurs, and financial and IP (Intellectual Property) experts.
As summarized in Figure 7, the options that students choose during their school years will
place them on different career paths. More importantly, the local supply of skills supports
two different local economic development paths. The path adopted by most students in
Moncton is the one that leads them to acquire trades skills for traditional sectors such as
building and construction, or metal fabricating ? an economic development path that does
not lead to innovations and growth. Knowledge-based economic development and wealth
creation are associated with students being trained to become managers, entrepreneurs,
skilled technicians, engineers, or scientists.
Figure 7. Moncton Education Value Chain as It Relates to Local Economic Development
The following information has been drawn from published data and the insights of many
experts in the New Brunswick educational system and Moncton?s private sector in order to:
? identify assets and challenges through the educational value-added chain (K-12,
post-secondary, and graduate education)
K-12 Education
Create Technology
Awareness & Excitement
? Critical Game Studies
? Games & Society
? Game Design
? Game Programming
? Visual Design
? Audio Design
? Interactive
Storytelling
? Game Production
? Business of Gaming
? Technology
Commercialization
? Project Management
? Business Fields?
Marketing, Finance,
Accounting
ICT / Gaming / BioInformatics
[e.g., Spielo, Whitehill
Technologies, OAO
Technologies]
Areas:
? Critical Game Studies &
Game Design
? Game Programming
? Visual Design
? Audio Design
? Interactive Storytelling
? Game Production
? Business of Gaming
? Project management
WEALTH CREATION SECTORS
? Electric & Electronic
? Motor Vehicle &
Heavy Equipment
? Metal Fabricating
? Building &
Construction
? Food & Beverage
Services
Trade Sector
High Tech
Corporate Sector
High Tech
Corporate Sector
High Tech
Entrepreneurial
Sector
Community College
Develop Technical
Skills Sets & Experience for
Business
University
Provide Theoretical Basis,
Practical Exercise and R&D for
Business
65
Report B
? formulate short- and longer-term policy actions that will help Moncton to
accelerate knowledge-based growth
Technical Education: K-12
?The K-12 sector is a dual system? one English, one French, and they don?t match. They
don?t teach the same things; curriculums are not the same; and the curriculums are not
developed together.? 41
Moncton children are educated in two different languages in two different school districts,
shown in Figure 8. School District 01 is Francophone and School District 02 is Anglophone.
The total enrollment in primary and secondary education in both school districts was 23,563
in 2005.42 Of these, 16,508 students were educated in English in the 38 schools of the
Anglophone School District 02, while 7,055 students were educated in French in the 13
schools of the Francophone School District 01. Three metrics are examined for Moncton?s K-
12 educational system: bilingual education, drop-out rates, and math education.
Figure 8. Map, Francophone District 01, Anglophone District 02, NB
41 Interview at the New Brunswick Department of Education with Louise Boudreau, Executive Director, Post-
Secondary Education and Training.
42 These data come from Summary Statistics School Year 2005-2006 published by the Policy & Planning Division,
Department of Education, New Brunswick. http://www.gnb.ca/0000/pub-e.asp
66
Report B
Bilingual Education
In 2002, Moncton became Canada?s first official bilingual city ? a designation that was
gained, in part, due to Moncton?s strong bilingual educational system at the primary and
secondary levels. According to the 2001 Census, 34 percent of the Moncton population
learns French as their first language, and almost one quarter (21 percent) of the workforce43
use French at their place of work. A bilingual workforce can be an important asset to attract
international companies to locate in Moncton, and interviewees frequently mentioned that
Moncton?s success in attracting call centers was linked to its bilingual workforce. In this
regard, we inquire whether high-school graduates from the Francophone District are
proficient in English, and whether high-school graduates from the Anglophone district are
proficient in French.
Figure 9 shows that 38.8 percent of the Anglophone students in District 02 are in an
immersion French program (compulsory from grades 1 to 10), which prepares students to
master all aspects of the French language: writing, reading, and oral communication. About
40 percent of the students in School District 02 are enrolled in French immersion classes;44
however, the number falls to 20 percent by grade 12.45 These Grade 12 students are eligible
to take the French Language Oral Proficiency Assessment: a 15-30 minute individual oral
interview which is rated according to the criteria of the New Brunswick Oral Proficiency
Scale.46 Students are not tested in proficiency to read or write in French. Data show that, of
the Grade-12 students tested, 60 percent scored at an Intermediate Level or higher in the
oral French test in 2005.47
Figure 9. Language Proficiency, Primary and Secondary Students
Source: Summary Statistics, School Year 2005-2006 (Policy & Planning Division, New Brunswick Department of
Education, 2006) http://www.gnb.ca/0000/pub-e.asp
43 Total population 15 years and older who worked since 2000.
44 Data from Table 4 and Table 5a from Summary Statistics 2005-2006 from the New Brunswick Department of
Education.
45 Data from table on page 49 from Report Card 2005 published by the New Brunswick Department of Education.
46 A description of the New Brunswick Second Language Oral Proficiency Scale is found at
http://www.gnb.ca/0000/publications/eval/oralprofgr12.pdf
47At a minimum, these students were able to satisfy the requirements of conversing about a broad variety of
everyday, school, and work situations. Students are not tested on the ability to read or write in French.
Anglophone District 02 Francophone District 01
10,095
French
Immersion
6,413
(38.8%) Anglophone
Francophone
7,055
67
Report B
Many of the music, Internet, and television programs that appeal to the younger generation
are presented in English, and 93 percent of Francophone students in Grade 10 achieved
intermediate level or higher on the ESL (English as a Second Language) Oral in Francophone
District 01 in the 2004-2005 exams.48 Francophone interviewees noted that Francophone
youngsters prefer to speak in English, and it is increasingly difficult to instill a high value for
communication in the French language.
Success Rates of Placing Students at a University
In 2005, 76 percent of students in the Anglophone District 02 went to university -- an
increase from 65 percent in 2002.49 Many interviewees indicated that a self-selection
process exists in which the best Anglophone students enroll in French immersion classes,
which helps explain that while almost 100 percent of the students in French immersion
classes go to university, only about 30 percent of monolingual students do.50 Proportionally,
many more Anglophone than Francophone high-school graduates continue their education at
the university level. A number of studies show a two-to-one preference for university over
community college among Francophone students, which is closer to the average for Canada.
Among Anglophone students, the proportion doubles to four-to-one.51
Quality of Math Education
Math education is a fundamental metric when preparing students to sustain a vibrant local
knowledge-based industry. Data in the 2005 Performance Review of the provincial
assessments in mathematics for Grade 8 show that students from the Anglophone District
02 were 3.2 percentage points above the NB average.52 Students in the Francophone
District 01, tested for math at grade 11, show an average score of 3 points above the
average for New Brunswick province during the school year 2004-2005.53 Yet these results
for the Francophone and Anglophone sectors cannot be directly compared because of
differences in their respective curriculums and evaluation tools. A proposed government
initiative to reinstate Provincial Achievement Examinations would provide both language
groups with equivalent education assessment.
While there is no national test to provide comparative data for New Brunswick?s School
Districts 01 and 02 in relation to other school districts in Canada, students from all provinces
participate in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) that tests students
in math, language, and science skills near the end of their compulsory education.54 Forty-
one countries participated in PISA 2003, including all 30 OECD countries. The large
Canadian sample allows reliable estimates representative of each province disaggregated for
French and English language school systems, but does not allow reliable comparisons at a
48 Provincial Examination Results?Francophone School Districts. Fredericton, NB: Francophone Assessment and
Evaluation Branch, New Brunswick Department of Education, 2005.
49 Interview with Karen Branscombe, Superintendent, Anglophone District, on August 2, 2006.
50 Ibid. Unfortunately, ESL data on the ability to write or read in English are not available from the NB Department
of Education; the data would have to be collected from each individual school.
51 These studies were mentioned by Dr. Richard Wiggers of the New Brunswick Department of Education.
Moreover, Robert Laurie, from the Francophone section of the Department, pointed out that there is no
consensus on this issue. Some studies find a very high proportion?60 percent?of the students go to university;
however, other studies indicate that only about 30 percent do. We interviewed both Wiggers and Laurie on August
3, 2006.
52 Performance Review 2005 (Moncton, NB: School District 2, 2005). http://www.district2.nbed.nb.ca
53 Provincial Examination Results?Francophone School Districts (Fredericton, NB: Francophone Assessment and
Evaluation Branch, New Brunswick Department of Education, 2005).
54 See P. Bussiere, F. Cartwright, and T. Knighton, Measuring Up: Canadian Results of the OECD PISA Study
(Ontario: Ministry of Industry, Statistics Canada, 2004), http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/81-590-XIE/81-
590-XIE2004001.pdf
68
Report B
smaller geographical area (e.g., Moncton). PISA 2003 reports no significant differences in
combined mathematics performance between the two school systems in NB. The province,
however, performed significantly lower than the Canadian average in the math test, which
deflates the value of Moncton students earning higher-than-average math scores in New
Brunswick.
Drop-Out Rates
Drop-out rates (for all schools and grades 7 to 12) in 2003-2004 were 2.4 and 3.1 percent
for the Francophone and the Anglophone school districts, respectively. The average for the
New Brunswick province was 2.9 percent.55 Michel Theriault, Assistant Deputy Minister,
indicates the low drop-out rates in both school districts are due to the provincial
government?s efforts to reduce drop out rates in high schools.56
An Issue of Concern? A Declining Student Population
The city of Moncton had a total population of 64,849 in 2004, with approximately 36 percent
being Francophone.57 Similar to the Atlantic Region?s population trends, the city?s population
growth rate is in decline. It grew at a rate of 4.1 percent in the 1980s, 4.0 percent in the
1990s, and only 2.9 percent between 1996 and 2001.58 Figure 10 shows the rate of
population growth by age groups between the 1996-2001 and 2001-2004 periods, and
indicates that these low growth rates are concentrated across the youngest population
cohorts. The current trend will continue to provide a decreasing supply of students for
School Districts 01 and 02 and a smaller demand for post-high school education (e.g.,
community colleges and universities). As the young population declines, so does the
probability of being able to provide a new post-secondary institution in Moncton to serve the
Anglophone population.
Figure 10. Rate of Population Growth in Moncton by Age Group
55 Summary Statistics, School Year 2005-2006 (Policy & Planning Division, New Brunswick Department of
Education, 2006) http://www.gnb.ca/0000/pub-e.asp
56 Interview with Michel Theriault, Assistant Deputy Minister, NB Community College, New Brunswick Department
of Education, August 3, 2006.
57 Demographic data comes from the City of Moncton, Planning Commission.
58 Ibid.
69
Report B
5.9%
-9.2%
-2.6%
-12.9%
18.6%
13.6%
3.6%3.7%
-0.6%
3.5%
17.0%
8.9%
3.6%4.3%
-0.9% -0.7%
-15.0%
-10.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
0-4 5-14 15-19 20-24 25-54 55-64 65-74 74 & over
1996-2001 2001-2004
Source: City of Moncton, Planning Commission.
70
Report B
K-12 Education for Tomorrow?s Workforce
?A skilled regional workforce is critically important to supporting regional high-tech industry.
But creating a techno-savvy workforce begins long before future workers are [at] the
universities. ? Sparking interest in high-tech careers is a process that begins as early as the
sixth grade.?59
The High Tech High Schools program funded by the Gates Foundation in the U.S., provides a
positive role model by which Moncton schools can increase student interest in high-tech
careers at an early age. These schools offer intense preparation in the ninth and tenth
grades to accelerate students? skills and prepare them for university-level work. By the junior
and senior years, the majority of the students? coursework will be university courses, taught
by university professors for university credit. Specialized labs take the place of traditional
classrooms; technology and a pre-engineering theme are integrated throughout the
curriculum; and internships at local companies provide real-world experience. These schools
provide a challenging technology-based education and raise awareness of engineering,
computer science, and technology for all students. Core subjects are closely interlinked with
the use of information technology (laptops, PDAs, scanners, video conferencing) with the
objective of preparing students for success outside of school and ensuring the nation?s
future in the high-tech industry.60 Cooperative learning is strongly emphasized to address
complaints from businesses that students graduate with skills but not the ability to use those
skills collectively in a group to solve problems. Due to close collaboration with business
interests, ?early-university? high schools will be able to address the needs of businesses.
Preliminary data indicate that these experiments are successful. High Tech High in San
Diego, California, implemented some of these programs. During the 2002-2003 school year,
99 percent of the tenth graders passed the California High School Exit Exam in reading and
88 percent passed the mathematics portion. In 2003, all 48 of the seniors graduated from
high school and 100 percent of the first graduating class was accepted to university. In
comparison, the district graduation rate averages 49 to 61 percent.
High school graduation requirements need to align with university entrance requirements.
Interviews at the Francophone and Anglophone school district revealed that none of these
innovative programs (such as high school students taking university level courses taught by
university professors, or pre-engineering themes integrated throughout the curriculum) are
currently implemented in Moncton?s districts. Moreover, although internships at local
companies provide real-world experience through the Young Apprentice Programs, most of
these internships are conducted in trades-related industries (in particular, the construction
industry) with which the districts have had a longer term, close relationship. More recently
some professional services such as doctors, dentists, and accountants are working closely
with the districts to receive interns; however, interviews revealed that few of Moncton?s ICT or
gaming companies work with school districts through formal internship programs.
Interviews show that, in general, there is low interaction between the school districts and the
community: local community colleges, universities, and community-based organizations.
Strategies that might improve the situation include establishing academic and community
advisors to assist high schools to develop mission statements and curriculums, help train
59 Workforce: The Force behind Technology, pp. 25-27 in Florida.HIGH.TECH Directory (Florida High Tech Corridor,
2006). http://www.floridahightech.com/directoryPDF/workforce.pdf
60 T. A. Huebner and G. C. Corbett, Rethinking High School?Five Profiles of Innovative Models for Student Success
(a study by WestEd for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2006).
http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/gates.profiles.pdf
71
Report B
staff, and evaluate the success of the educational programming. Also, businesses and
foundations should provide increased resources to catalyze reform. At present, these
strategies are not prominent in school districts 01 and 02. The current educational system is
highly centralized at the provincial government level, and some interviewees feel it would be
beneficial to develop a more community-based curriculum. Thus the possibility exists to
implement some of the innovative initiatives discussed here. Further, these innovations
would support the New Liberal Government agenda to develop a Community Schools Policy
(in which one objective is to allow greater flexibility in course development).61
K-12 Education: Assets and Challenges
Assets:
? Low drop-out rates
? An educational system that supplies a bilingual workforce
? An increasing number of Anglophone students pursue a university degree
? Math score tests above the average for the New Brunswick province
Challenges:
? A horizontally disintegrated provincial math testing system for Anglophone and
Francophone students that does not allow comparisons across these two groups
? Lack of a standard test that would allow comparison of Moncton students? math scores
with those in the rest of Canada and in other industrialized countries
? A relatively low proportion of Francophone students (compared to Anglophone students)
continuing to university
? A declining growth rate of the young population supplying a decreasing number of
students to the local educational value-added chain: primary and secondary education,
community colleges, and universities
? A school system that doesn?t spark interest in high-tech careers among students at an
early age
UNDERGRADUATE : I T EDUCAT ION
Primary, secondary, and post-secondary education in Canada is governed provincially.
Undergraduate education in Moncton is conducted by three classifications of educational
institutions, based on program duration and the authorization to issue a baccalaureate
degree. Programs offered by private colleges range from 5 months to 2 years, the
community college programs last from 1 to 3 years, and most university programs last 4
years or longer; only universities have the authority to issue a baccalaureate degree.
High-tech hubs in Canada such as Vancouver and Toronto are characterized by a large
proportion of university-degreed workers in their labor force market. Knowledge-based cities
facilitate learning and are particularly attractive to highly-talented young people who have
large potential returns from their education attainment. Knowledge ?rubs off? on people in
places such as Silicon Valley and Austin because individuals in high-tech cities interact and
cooperate with other high-ability people, are well-placed to communicate complex ideas with
them, and are highly motivated.62
61 Shawn Graham, The Chapter for Change?The Liberal Plan for a Better New Brunswick, September 2006, p.
12.
62 There is an extensive literature that documents the importance of knowledge spillovers in high-tech regions.
For a revision of this literature, see D. B. Audretsch and M. P. Feldman, ?Knowledge spillovers and the geography
of innovations,? pp. 2713-2739 in V. Henderson and J. F. Thisse (eds.) Handbook of Regional and Urban
Economics Vol. 4 (Oxford: Elsevier, 2004).
72
Report B
In Vancouver and Toronto, the proportion of workers with a university degree is 39.7 and
36.4, respectively (Figure 11). The percentage of workers with a trade or college (private or
public) certificate or diploma is less than half the proportion of those with a university
degree. Two trends are observed. First, the proportion of workers with a university degree is
much smaller in Moncton than in cities like Vancouver or Toronto. Second, the proportion of
workers with a private or community college certificate or diploma is much larger than in
high-tech cities like Vancouver and Toronto. The lower proportion of university graduates in
Moncton may be explained by two trends. First, the proportion of knowledge-based
industries in the local economy is relatively small (although ICT industries have grown
dynamically). Second, the lack of a major Anglophone university in Moncton creates a
relative scarcity of Anglophone workers with a university degree.
Fortunately, Moncton?s private and community colleges provide a large supply of technicians
with strong IT-related skills. Following is a list of the IT-related educational programs
available at Moncton?s private schools and community colleges.
Figure11. Workers with Trades Certificate, College Diploma or University Degree: Moncton,
Vancouver, Toronto
9.5%
10.8%
6.8%
5.5%
21.9%
19.9%
16.4%
15.5%
22.2% 22.9%
39.7%
36.4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Moncton, NB
(City)
Canada Vancouver, BC
(City)
Toronto, ON
(City)
Trades certificate or diploma College certificate or diploma University certificate, diploma or degree
Source: Statistics Canada, Community Profiles, 2001.
Private Colleges: IT-Related Programs
Atlantic Business College?Moncton Campus (5-month and 10-month programs):63
? Business and Computer Technology Program (5-month)
? Microsoft Office Specialist Program (5-month)
? Computer Repair and Network Administrator (10-month)
63 Atlantic Business College also has a campus in Fredericton, NB.
73
Report B
CompuCollege?Moncton (10-month programs):64
? Multimedia: Graphic Design & Development
? Accounting and Computer Applications
? Business & Computer Applications
? Business and Computer Applications and Sales Specialist
? Computer Business Applications
? Computer Business Applications Specialist
? Computer Service Technician
? Information Systems Administrator
? Information Systems Specialist
Oulton College (11-month programs):
? Advanced Programming
? Business Management (Entrepreneurship)
? Network Administration and Security
McKenzie College (1- and 2-year diploma programs):65
? Graphic Design
? Digital Media
? Animation
Community Colleges ? IT-Related Courses
New Brunswick Community College (NBCC)?Moncton Campus.66 Regular college training
programs generally involve from 40 to 80 weeks of study (1-year business- or industry-driven
programs, or 2-year technology programs). Total number of students: 4,000.
? Aircraft Technology Option: Avionics
? Computer Network Technology (Option: Network Design and Administration)
? Computer Programming Technology (Option: Internet Application Programmer)
? Computer Systems Technician (Option: Desktop Support)
? Computer Systems Technician (Option: Network Support)
? Computerized Numerically Controlled Manufacturing Technician
? Electrical Engineering Technology (Option: Industrial Electronics)
? Electrical Engineering Technology (Option: Telecommunications)
? Electrical Engineering Technology (Option: Alternate Energy Systems)
? Electrical Engineering Technology (Option: Electronics Design and Embedded
Systems)
? Pre-Technology
New Brunswick Community College (CCNB)--Dieppe Campus. Total number of students: 600.
? Applied Internet Programming
? Management of Small and Medium-Sized Companies
? Web and Multi-Media Production Techniques
64 Other CompuCollege campuses are located in Halifax (NS), St. John?s (NF), Fredericton (NB), Saint John (NB),
and Charlottetown (PE). Average number of students per year in the Moncton Campus: 200.
65 This institution also has a campus in Halifax (NS). Average number of students per year at the Halifax campus:
100.
66 The New Brunswick Community Colleges are a bilingual (English and French), province-wide network of ten
training and educational institutions that offer more than 100 full-time programs, as well as near-term training
services, educational upgrading, and literacy training. Anglophone Campuses (NBCC): Moncton, Miramichi, St.
Andrews, Fredericton, and Saint John. Francophone Campuses (CCNB): Dieppe, Bathurst, Campbellton, and
Edmundston. NBCC?s College of Craft and Design is also located in Fredericton.
74
Report B
Universities: Science & Engineering Education
As can be seen in Figure 12, there are only two universities in Moncton: Universit? de
Moncton and Atlantic Baptist University, which is private. Mount Allison University is located
nearby, in Sackville. The University of New Brunswick (UNB) has only a nursing campus in
Moncton, but it has large campuses in Fredericton and Saint John.
There are other private universities in New Brunswick that are not placed in the map such as
Yorkville University and Landsbridge University in Fredericton and St. Stephen?s University in
St. Stephen and Bethany Bible College in Sussex. However, these universities are small and
do not offer ICT specializations.
Figure 12. Map, Universities in New Brunswick Province where Most Monctonians are Educated
1. Universit? de Moncton, Campus de
Moncton
2. Universit? de Moncton, Campus
d?Edmundston
3. Universit? de Moncton, Campus de
Shippagan
4. Atlantic Baptist University
5. Mount Allison University
6. University of New Brunswick, Fredericton
7. University of New Brunswick, Saint John
8. St. Thomas University
Table 6 illustrates the geography of the universities in New Brunswick that train most of the
university graduates who work in Moncton; most of these are primarily undergraduate
institutions with relatively few graduate programs. The Maritime Provinces Higher Education
Commission defines a comprehensive university as one that has a significant amount of
research activity and a wide range of programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels,
including professional degrees. The only comprehensive university listed here, is the
University of New Brunswick (UNB), with campuses in Fredericton and Saint John. UNB-
Fredericton is also the largest university in the province, with a student body of 9,781
students, twice the size of the Universit? de Moncton. Moreover, it has 359 full-time
master?s students and 175 doctoral students in science and engineering fields. It is the only
university in New Brunswick offering doctoral programs in science and engineering (S&E).
75
Report B
Table 6. New Brunswick Universities Educating Most of the Monctonians
Full-Time S&E Students
University City University Type
Total
Enroll-
ment
Under-
grad
Mas-
ters PhD
Atlantic Baptist University Moncton Undergraduate 687 48 0 0
Mount Allison University (MTA) Sackville Primarily Undergraduate 2,319 345 6 0
Universit? de Moncton (UdeM) Moncton Primarily Undergraduate 4,586 573 88 0
Universit? de Moncton (UdeM) Shippagan Undergraduate 746 17 0 0
Universit? de Moncton (UdeM) Edmundston Undergraduate 1,007 90 0 0
University of New Brunswick (UNB) Fredericton Comprehensive 9,781 1,956 359 175
University of New Brunswick (UNB) Saint John Comprehensive 3,234 255 38 12
St. Thomas University (STU) Fredericton Primarily Undergraduate 3,135 1 0 0
S&E ? Science and Engineering Fields. Sources: Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission, Data and Information ?
Static Tables, Year: 2004-2005, http://www.mphec.ca/english/statictables.html. Atlantic Baptist University, Annual Report
2004/2005.
Following is a list of the ICT/Bioscience/Engineering bachelor, master, and Ph.D. degrees
offered by each one of these universities grouped by location.
Universities in Moncton
Universit? de Moncton ? the largest francophone university in Canada outside of Quebec;
offers 42 graduate and 187 undergraduate programs in three campuses: Moncton,
Edmundston, and Shippagan. Two important areas of focus in S&T are: (1) Innovative Optics
and Materials and (2) Information Technology.
ICT/Bioscience/Engineering Bachelor degrees:
? Engineering (Mechanical and Electrical)
? Sciences (Interdisciplinary Degree, Biochemistry, Biology, Chemistry,
Informatics/Computer Science, Mathematics, Physics and Astronomy, Special
Science Programs, Health Sciences, Medical Laboratory Sciences, Radiation
Technology, Respiratory Therapy)
ICT/Bioscience/Engineering master degrees:
? Engineering (Applied Mechanical, Electrical, and Industrial Engineering)
? Sciences (Biochemistry, Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics, Physics and a
Certificate in Information Technology)
Atlantic Baptist University ? small private Christian liberal arts and science institution. The
only S&T degree offered by the ABU is a Bachelor of Science in Biology.
The University of New Brunswick (Moncton Campus) ? A faculty of Nursing, established in
Moncton in 1995, offers health sciences degree courses in Nursing and Medical X-Ray
Technology and is located in the Moncton Hospital.
Other Universities in New Brunswick Province Educating Most of the Monctonians
The University Of New Brunswick In Fredericton ? It is the oldest English university in Canada.
Its engineering program is ranked in the top 20 percent in North America.
ICT/Bioscience/Engineering Bachelor degrees:
76
Report B
? Computer Science (Areas of Specialization: Hardware Systems, Software
Systems, Information Systems, Theory and Computation, Multimedia Systems,
and Geographic Information Systems (GIS).
? Chemical Engineering
? Computer Engineering
? Electrical Engineering
? Mechanical Engineering
? Software Engineering
? Biology
? Physics
? Chemistry
? Applied Physics
? Mathematics and Statistics
ICT/Bioscience/Engineering Master and Doctoral degrees:
? Computer Science
? Chemical Engineering
? Electrical and Computer Engineering
? Mechanical Engineering
? Biology
? Physics
? Chemistry
? Mathematics and Statistics
Other Degree Programs:
? Professional Experience Program (PEP) - The PEP program provides students with
an extended period of continuous work experience (12 to 16 months).
? BCS/GGE is a highly technical five-and-a-half-year program that combines
knowledge of computer programming and data-base management with Geodesy
& Geomatics Engineering (science of positioning, mapping, geographic
information systems {GIS} and spatial analysis). Graduates qualify for Canadian
Professional Engineering accreditation.
? BCS/BSc is a five year program designed for students to pursue a scientific
research career that requires a thorough background in computing. For the
Bachelor of Science component, students can choose to concentrate in one of
the following areas: Biology, Chemistry, Geology, Math or Physics.
? BCS/BEd is a five year concurrent BCS and Bachelor of Education program to
prepare students to teach computer science in a variety of learning
environments.
? Certificate in Computer Telephony Integration ? The Faculty of Computer Science
offers a program leading to a Certificate in Computer-Telephony Integration, that
provides individuals with the background required to participate in the
implementation of CTI solutions in a business environment.
? Certificate in Software Development is a part-time certificate program designed
to provide individuals, especially working adults, with an opportunity to acquire
the formal background necessary to become effective participants in the
Information Technology industry.
? Working toward BCS and MBA Degrees ? Students can obtain a BCS together
with an MBA degree in the same timeframe as a concurrent degree.
? Technology Management & Entrepreneurship Program (TME) is taken
concurrently with a Bachelor of Science in Engineering and provides students
77
Report B
with an additional understanding of the rapidly changing business and
management environment.
? Co-operative Education Programs - Co-op is ?hands-on? education extending the
learning process beyond the classroom into the workplace by alternating
academic study terms with paid periods of career related work experience. Co-op
is available within the Chemical, Civil, Computer, Electrical, Forest, Mechanical
and Software Engineering programs.
The University of New Brunswick in Saint John
ICT/Bioscience/Engineering Bachelor degrees:
? Chemical Engineering
? Computer Engineering
? Electrical Engineering
? Geodesy & Geomatics Engineering
? Mechanical Engineering
? Software Engineering
? Computer Science (Areas of Specialization: High Performance Scientific
Computing, Software Engineering, and Networking)
? Biology
? Mathematics
? Statistics
S&E Master and Doctoral degrees
? Biology
Mount Allison University (Sackville, NB) has been recognized by MacLean?s Magazine as the
top undergraduate university in Canada. Its Computer Science Program has drawn particular
attention in recent years. A policy of enrollment has kept the university small.
ICT/Bioscience/Engineering Bachelor degrees:
? Biology
? Chemistry
? Mathematics
? Computer Science
? Physics
? Biochemistry
Closing the Gap in the Local Supply of University-Educated Workers
The lower proportion of workers with a university degree in Moncton (relative to Vancouver or
Toronto) may partly be explained by the lack of an Anglophone comprehensive university. As
Figure 13 shows, 16.6 percent of the Francophone Monctonians have a university degree,
compared to only 11.7 percent of the Anglophone population.67 More important, the
proportion of Francophone Monctonians with a university degree is 4 percentage points
above the proportion for Francophone Canadians (9.2 percent), while the proportion of
university-educated Anglophone Monctonians is 3.3 percentage points below their
counterpart in the whole of Canada (11.8 percent).
Figure 13. Percentage of the 15+ Population with a University Degree, 2001
67 Data are for Greater Moncton and include the cities of Moncton and Dieppe and the town of Riverview.
78
Report B
11.7%
12.7%
15.0%
15.4%
16.6%
16.7%
21.1%
22.9%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Anglophones
- Moncton
Francophones
- Canada
Anglophones
- Canada
Canada
- Overall
Francophones
- Moncton
St. John's
Halifax
Fredericton
Source: Statistics Canada
Many interviewees described how students leave Moncton to study at nearby universities in
Fredericton, Halifax, or Saint John, and do not return to establish home and career. The
drain of local talent would be reduced with the presence of a comprehensive university for
the Anglophone community, which would in turn reduce the gap in university-educated
workers and increase the total supply of engineers to level more comparable to Toronto and
Vancouver, on a per capita basis.
Although ICT companies in Moncton have been successful to attract needed talent to the
community, the need for a local university is not reduced. The importance of a strong
university for knowledge-based economic development is well documented. Stanford in
Silicon Valley, MIT in Boston, and the University of Texas at Austin68 played a key role in the
success of these regions or cities. Producing high-tech talent for the local workforce is one of
several vital roles which these universities play to promote entrepreneurial activity. They
provide training in technology commercialization, intellectual property, and business courses
for new and already-established entrepreneurs; they help to attract knowledge-based
industries from outside the region; they provide highly competitive industry professionals the
opportunity to upgrade their education; and they enhance the local knowledge base by
attracting R&D funding and creating new technologies.
The Universit? de Moncton has played an important role in the development of local
entrepreneurial activity and in attracting R&D funds for university research. In the future, the
Universit? de Moncton could also play important role in attracting companies from French-
speaking countries; however, it can only provide these opportunities for French-literate
workers and students. Mount Allison University, located nearby, offers important
opportunities for students in biotechnology, but does not have an engineering school or the
extensive supply of ICT training such as UNB-Fredericton.
68 For Silicon Valley and Boston, see Anna Lee Saxenian, Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon
Valley and Route 128 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994). For Austin, see Raymond W. Smilor,
George Kozmetsky, and David V. Gibson, Creating the Technopolis (Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Company,
1988) and Elsie L. Echeverri-Carroll, ?Knowledge spillovers in high-technology agglomerations: measurement and
modeling,? pp. 146-161 in Manfred M. Fischer and Josef Fr?lich (eds.), Knowledge, Complexity, and Innovation
Systems (Berlin: Springer Verlag, 2001).
79
Report B
Figure 14. Percentage of Full-time Students Enrolled in New Brunswick Universities with Permanent
Residence in New Brunswick
Unfortunately, developing a completely new Anglophone university in Moncton does not
seem feasible in the context of tight education budgets and a declining population of high
school graduates. Figure 14 shows that most New Brunswick universities have experienced
a decline in the enrollment of students who are residents of the province (which accounts for
a large proportion of the student body), with the exception of Mount Allison University, which
has been able to attract a relatively large proportion of students from other provinces in
Canada, and the University of New Brunswick in Saint John, which has been able to attract a
large proportion of foreign students, as seen Figure 15.
Figure 15. Percentage of Int?l Students in New Brunswick Universities
Source: Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission, Data and Information ? Static Tables, Year: 2004-
2005, http://www.mphec.ca/english/statictables.html
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1995-1996 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005
Universit? de Moncton - Moncton Universit? de Moncton - Shippagan Universit? de Moncton - d'Edmundston
Mount Allison University St. Thomas University University of New Brunswick - Fredericton
University of New Brunswick - Saint John
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1995-1996 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005
Universit? de Moncton - Moncton Universit? de Moncton - Shippagan Universit? de Moncton - Edmundston
Mount Allison University St. Thomas University University of New Brunswick - Fredericton
University of New Brunswick - Saint John
80
Report B
The New Brunswick Community College campus at Moncton has earned a good reputation
for training the technicians in the ICT/gaming industry. Our interviews showed consistent
local agreement ? among representatives from the New Brunswick Department of
Education, the community colleges, and the private sector ? that the city would benefit from
better alignment of post-secondary capacity in ICT with regional industry needs and the
expansion of articulation agreements (community college-to-university, and across
universities) to encourage post-secondary educational enrollment, especially among
Anglophone students.69
As Elizabeth Rybak, CEO of VE Networks, pointed out during our phone interview, ?I?ve been
successful in attracting people from major centers like Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal, with
the excitement of the opportunity and the quality of life that we can offer here in the
Maritime Provinces.?70 However, Moncton?s capacity to attract, train, and retain talent is also
important for two other reasons. First, in the last ten years, local universities such as the
Universit? de Moncton and Mount Allison University have been able to attract R&D funds that
provide new opportunity to develop and commercialize new inventions. While the link
between R&D and entrepreneurship has been difficult to establish, a labor pool of university-
educated graduates will contribute to commercialization activities and entrepreneurship.
Second, the capacity to attract existing high-tech companies to Moncton will increase with
the opportunity for high-tech employees to continue graduate education and training at a
local university (and not all of these will speak French).
It is well known that knowledge-based industries in the United States have benefited from a
large supply of foreign graduate students in engineering and science who remain in the
country after graduating. According to a report by Michael Finn71 and unpublished 2005
data from the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, 61 percent of the engineering
and science students with temporary visas who received doctoral degrees from U.S.
universities in 1998 remained in the United States in 2003 (5 years later), which shows an
increase from 56 percent in 2001. However, for most universities in New Brunswick, less
than 10 percent of the students are foreign-born. A new UNB-Moncton branch could develop
policies similar to the ones successfully implemented by the UNB-Saint John to attract
foreign students to ICT specializations.
An alternative way to increase the number of Anglophone graduates within Moncton, aside
from the region ?bootstrapping a university? is to provide special scholarships for distance-
learning opportunities for university students, on the provision that they remain and work in
Moncton. While it would be more difficult to control, similar scholarships could be provided
for education outside of Moncton, on the condition that students return to live and work in
Moncton. One example of a scholarship program that could leverage a regional advantage
would be to place a team of students through a distance-education commercialization
program, such as the Master of Science in Science and Technology Commercialization
program offered by The University of Texas at Austin, through the IC? Institute.
69 Another policy alternative is to convert NBCC-Moncton into a technical college similar to the ones that have
been very successful in British Columbia. However, Dr. Richard Wiggers, Senior Policy Analyst for Post- Secondary
Affairs, pointed out that British Columbia has rapid population growth and one of the lowest university
participation rates?the opposite of what Moncton is currently experiencing.
70 VE Networks provides secure internet communications tools to companies and individual customers. Interview
on August 17, 2006.
71 Michael Finn, Stay Rates of Foreign Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities (Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge
Institute for Science and Education, 2003).
81
Report B
CASE STUDY: VE Networks
Interview with Elisabeth Rybak, President
VE Networks was recently founded to develop and market user-friendly security for
web-based communication and file transfers. The Moncton company is developing a
software suite called TrustMe? for personal, professional, and corporate use. The
software allows users to secure their email interactions within the operations of their
current email applications and functionality. A standard edition of TrustMe? is
available for free on the product Web site, and more advanced versions are
scheduled to be released for sale by the end of 2006.
Background
VE Networks was founded on the vision of a better method to protect web-based
interactions. Most computer security systems are based on establishing system
perimeters that prevent unauthorized access to files, software, and components. But
with these security systems, information remains at risk during transmission (email
messages, instant messages or file transfers). VE Networks is designing a security
system to protect these inter-computer and inter-network communications, in a
format that can be seamlessly imbedded in current operating systems and applica-
tions. The program, TrustMe?, employs a public/private key encryption method
(used in many advanced security systems) designed for the average user to imple-
ment with minimal disruption to their current software systems and internet usage.
The executive team at VE Networks consists of highly experienced NB business
professionals including the co-founder and former CEO of Q1 Labs Inc. and the co-
founder and CEO of Whitehill Technologies Inc. These seasoned entrepreneurs have
designed the company for strong growth. Thus far, the company has been able to
obtain preliminary funding of over $2.3M from 200+ local angel investors and is
planning to expand its workforce from 11 to 40 by the end of 2007.
Assets and Challenges
According to CEO Elizabeth Rybak, the lack of proximity to any of the major money
centers of either Canada or the U.S. increased the challenge for VE Networks to
obtain the start-up capital to develop its core technology and establish preliminary
marketing efforts. The company did not seek funding from the National Research
Council?s Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP) since their method of
software development was not readily fundable within the program?s guidelines72.
Rybak feels that the college and university programs in Moncton are strong and
provide a rich talent pool. ?I?ve found that we have exceptional post-secondary
institutions all around us here in the Maritimes. So being in Moncton, you can draw
talented employees from these schools.? Thus far, Rybak has not had difficulties
finding intelligent young employees that the company can train into knowledgeable
and productive company assets.
72 VE Networks? software is being developed using a ?sprint? methodology in which progress and project plans are
evaluated periodically (for example, every 30 days) until tasks are complete. This method can allow the
development team to be more agile and respond easily to problems and/or new information about the
marketplace. This approach, however, is not easily funded through agencies because it does not outline
development plans for the entire project.
82
Report B
The more challenging component of staffing VE Networks in Moncton is finding
individuals to round out a senior management team. She?s found that qualified Vice
Presidents of Sales or Chief Financial Officers are scarce commodities in Moncton.
One of Moncton?s strongest assets, according to Rybak, is the city itself, and she has
attracted experienced executives from other cities by promoting Moncton?s high-
quality, low-cost lifestyle. ?Moncton is a wonderful place to live and to bring up your
kids,? she says, and ??that is a very strong card to play.? Moncton is also a natural
geographic hub for the region, and as such, a productive recruiting center for
qualified employees. Additionally, Rybak is encouraged by the bilingualism that is
prevalent among the city?s youth. She feels that having a strong background in both
English and French gives students and young professionals a ?bilingual perspective?
that can be advantageous to developing innovation in the city.
At the same time, Rybak has found it difficult as a female entrepreneur in a city as
small as Moncton. Most professionals she encounters are not accustomed to strong
female executives, and she sometimes needs to prove her qualifications to new
business partners in a way that may not be required of a man in her position; but her
success qualifies her as a strong role model to younger females in the community.
Lessons Learned
VE Networks? financing strategy is to remain open to both U.S. and Canadian capital
markets; and the company is structured to be attractive to both types of investors.
The company was incorporated in Delaware, which disqualifies local angel investors
for certain New Brunswick tax benefits. An operating company was incorporated in
New Brunswick, wholly-owned by the U.S. parent, and the company maintains both
U.S. and Canadian legal counsel. It can be highly beneficial for young companies in
Moncton to incorporate and plan for U.S. involvement within its corporate financing
structures, and to have the proper investment instruments for start-up angel
investment. Moncton might provide professional advisors and consultants to help
companies structure an overall financing strategy that includes an approach toward
the U.S. financial market.
To attract a larger talent pool of diversified skill sets to the city, a systematic public
relations campaign should be organized to advertise the city's low cost of living, high
quality of life, and vibrant technology sector to citizens around Canada. Additionally,
the provincial government could establish a repatriation tax credit, both for
companies and individuals who return to work in the province. Also, provincial tax
credit incentives could encourage more investment in companies like VE Networks if
these incentives included investing in companies who operate and employ in the
province (regardless of the location of incorporation).
Finally, organizations like Business New Brunswick, Enterprise Greater Moncton, and
the Chamber of Commerce should celebrate successful women entrepreneurs like
Elisabeth Rybak, who presents a positive role model for young female entrepreneurs
in New Brunswick, especially in IT, traditionally a male-dominated industry.
83
Report B
RESEARCH & DEVELO PMENT BASE
CASE STUDY: Wind Energy Research & Development
Interview with Yves Gagnon, Universit? de Moncton, September 22, 2006
Professor Gagnon, the K.C. Irving Chair in Sustainable Development at the Universit?
de Moncton, is a former visiting executive with the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada (NSERC). With a prodigious scholarly record of
achievement, Professor Gagnon is widely regarded as Atlantic Canada?s leading
expert on renewable energy research in general, and wind energy in particular.
Professor Gagnon is strongly committed to establishing a demonstration site on the
Universit? de Moncton campus where student researchers will gain first-hand
experience measuring the impact of residential renewable energy by testing small
wind turbines and solar panels. The site will make extensive use of education
models on the internet and upload real-time data for secondary students around New
Brunswick; which in turn will enable climate change studies toward the goal of
promoting renewable energy sources.
Background
Professor Gagnon recognizes the importance of energy to the economic health of
Canada and New Brunswick, from both a production and consumption perspective.
?No one can deny that fossil fuels are obviously the dominant source of energy for
most of the world now. But renewable energy and energy efficiency are crucially
important long-term issues for a region like New Brunswick, where wind energy is so
abundant.?
At the same time, he recognizes significant hurdles for technology development and
commercialization in the wind energy industry. Technology in large utility-scale wind
turbines is mature; the industry is consolidated and it is difficult for small companies
to gain entry. For a region to pursue commercialization of new large-scale wind
technologies is probably not feasible. On the other hand, the market is more open
for small-scale wind turbines for residential and small business applications. Gagnon
thinks there is a window of opportunity for commercial development ? opportunity
that will close as companies emerge to meet this market need.
Education and outreach
The Eco-Efficiency Center is a non-profit entity established by Dalhousie University.
The center?s activities and programs provide information on how industry (specifically
SMEs) can reduce energy use through better energy management, efficient waste
processes, and outreach efforts. ACOA and Nova Scotia Power have funded the
Center, which has both a campus and an off-campus Halifax presence. In
partnership with his collaborators at Dalhousie University, Gagnon would like to open
a similar center in Moncton and at Universit? de Moncton. Such a center, he thinks,
could be located at the proposed Moncton incubator for research, teaching, and
training, as well as to maximize contact with industry, perform energy balance audits
for local companies, and promote renewables for industrial applications. Gagnon is
hopeful that he will find financial support for the new center in Moncton because
ACOA has indicated a current priority to fund energy efficiency.
84
Report B
Incubation and commercialization
Gagnon is intrigued by the idea of an incubator in Moncton to promote
commercialization and technology transfer from university-based R&D. Although
much of the technology to produce wind power is mature (especially in blade shape
design, materials research, generators and inverters, control systems, and tower
construction), Gagnon sees development of wind energy for residential and small
business use as a potential market opportunity. Canadian Tire, for instance, sells a
$1000, 400-kilowatt wind turbine for residential and small business applications.
Gagnon is considering the creation of a new company to build and commercialize a
small wind turbine for residential and small business applications. The new company
could be an anchor tenant in the new incubator, attracting more R&D activity in
renewables and taking advantage of commercialization expertise to be housed at the
incubator. Gagnon believes the elements for success are in place: he could partner
with colleagues at UNB who have developed converter technology for wind power
generation; a gearbox prototype could be designed and developed with one of the
local metal manufacturing partners; AIF funding is probable, because of the
collaborative nature of the university/industry partnership, clear commercialization
path, and strong credentials of the principals. ?Such a project would be contingent
on AIF-type funding, of course. But for such a project to work,? says Gagnon, ?we
would need commercialization expertise. The prospect of locating the company in an
incubator, where we could access commercialization resources, is attractive.?
An incubator would also realize many advantages in having Professor Gagnon?s
company as an early tenant. An early ?win? (moving from prototype to
commercialization and then graduating from the incubator) provides the community
with confirmation that the incubator could successfully generate economic activity in
Moncton. With his expertise, Professor Gagnon?s company would almost certainly
prove to be an early win. Additionally, such a success would attract other university-
based researchers to locate projects, companies, and research activities at the
incubator, enlarging R&D capacity in the city and region (not limited to the renewable
energy sector). The synergies with his Eco-Efficiency Center, which also could be
located at the incubator, would be numerous.
Action Plan
? Build in plans and space for R&D activity in new incubator;
? Provide for commercialization experts at incubator with experience in technology
transfer;
? Promote incubator as a center for R&D initiatives like Gagnon?s, as well as
organic ICT companies.
CASE STUDY: Nanoptix
Interview with Daniel Vienneau, President
Nanoptix designs, engineers, and manufactures thermal direct printers for point-of-
service, gaming, lottery, and kiosk customers around the world. Daniel Vienneau
launched the company in 1996 after serving as general manager of Concept Plus
and GENIEO at the Universit? de Moncton; he was also part of Spielo?s start-up team
at CADMI. Today, Nanoptix has a staff of 32 and annual revenues of $6-7 million.
85
Report B
Background
The history of Nanoptix is closely linked to the story of CADMI/GENIEO, the incubator
and prototyping center at the Universit? de Moncton. Daniel Vienneau, his brother
Michel, and other top managers at Nanoptix benefited greatly from their experience
with CADMI/GENIEO. Vienneau believes a new incubator like the proposed Moncton
Technology Commercialization Center, properly structured and run by the right
people, can recapture CADMI/GENIEO?s innovative spirit. ?An incubator creates a
momentum that will not stop. CADMI/GENIEO produced the first generation of
technology in the area, and companies like Spielo, and Nanoptix are still around as
testaments to the effectiveness of science commercialization and business
incubation,? says Vienneau.
Nanoptix began operations in 1996. After working closely with thin films and optics
professors at Universit? de Moncton, he developed a $50,000 instrument that
measures the optical properties of thin films in the nanometer range ? a specialized
niche product that the company marketed and sold all over the world. In 1999, the
firm sold the intellectual property for the instrument to a company in Cambridge, UK,
and moved into the printer market. Spielo was its first customer, bringing in Nanoptix
to design and build a printer for its lottery machines for a large contract with the
Netherlands. Today, Nanoptix builds its own line of thermal printers and
manufactures all of its own products. All of its printers are sold outside of Canada,
and Vienneau is especially excited about new gaming markets in Macao, where
gambling revenue has already reached Las Vegas levels.
Assets and Challenges
Staff cohesion: Much of the firms? success, Vienneau believes, is a result of
extraordinary staff cohesion and dedication to the company?s core mission. The
strength of Nanoptix? staff, Vienneau says, lies not so much in the fact that the
majority of staff and management is Francophone, but rather that key employees
have developed a high degree of trust over time. ?We sell our products all over the
world and must be comfortable in many languages and cultures, from Australia to
Asia to the states of the former Soviet Union, so the fact that many of us are
Francophone is not a big deal to us. What is important to us is that we function well
as a team.?
Execution: Currently Nanoptix manufactures 15,000 units a year and has capacity to
build 25,000 per year, but the firm?s strength is in engineering and sales. ?We will
contract out for manufacturing above this level, if need be, in order to focus on our
core strengths,? said Vienneau. The firm enjoys impressive and steady annual
growth of about 40 percent; revenues have expanded from $4.3 million in 2005 to
$6-7 million in 2006, and are projected to be $10 million in 2007. The company
recently increased its engineering and sales staff to introduce a new product line. In
order to bridge the resulting gap in sales, the firm sold a quarter of its shares to a
venture capital group. Rather than worry about a temporary sales and revenue dip,
management squarely focuses on a long term strategy for innovation and
engineering new products; they plan to buy back the shares in three years.
Finance: Company growth has been financed largely from sales over the past
decade, although a small loan from NRC-IRAP, and another from ACOA, helped
launch the company in 1996. ?Because of my work at CADMI/GENIEO, it was
relatively easy for me to get government help at first,? says Vienneau. He adds,
86
Report B
however, that start-up capital is scarce in Moncton/Dieppe. ?Anything that can be
done to change the culture of financial risk-taking should be tried,? he said, including
organizing angel investors and encouraging wealthy entrepreneurs and business
people around the Maritimes to invest in the IT sector, bringing in those with
backgrounds in other industries.
Lessons Learned
Business in Moncton/Dieppe: Clearly, the region?s high quality of life, sound
educational system, and safe family environment is a huge attraction for Nanoptix
employees, but for a globally competitive technology company, the region?s relative
isolation is a double-edged sword. ?Being at least two air flights from any of our
customers is a disadvantage,? says Vienneau, ?but the extra costs to us, both in time
and travel expense, still remain far below the advantages we enjoy by having our
labor and infrastructure located here.?
Government support: Vienneau thinks that ACOA is an excellent support program,
but NRC-IRAP could be more ?user friendly.? Nanoptix spends $600,000 - $700,000
on research and development a year and must continually innovate its products with
as much government support as it can acquire. ?We had an IRAP grant to support a
very high-end R&D project last year, but it required a half-time person just to manage
the paperwork for IRAP,? Vienneau said.
Incubation: A major factor in the Nanoptix success story was its start in CADMI/
GENIEO. Recreating the atmosphere of collaboration, innovation, and entrepreneur-
ship in the Moncton Technology Commercialization Center, Vienneau thinks, could
spark a ?second generation? of new technology companies in Moncton and Dieppe.
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT FUNDING
Research and development (R&D) is the basis for innovation and therefore economic growth.
While innovations of new technologies can produce fast-growing ventures, new technology
development remains the root from which these innovations spring. Research centers at
universities and private companies require funds to create these new products and
processes which necessarily precede commercialization and its vital role in the knowledge-
based entrepreneurial process. Moncton is typical in Atlantic Canada, and its economy is
dominated by small and-medium size enterprises that allocate few resources to R&D. Low
participation in R&D by the private sector means that the region (including the province of
New Brunswick and Moncton) relies more heavily on federal research funding, than does
Canada as a whole. In 2002, the private sector accounted for 49 percent of R&D funding in
Canada, while it accounted for only 20 percent in the province and 17 percent in Atlantic
Canada (Fig. 16).73
Moncton industries could potentially commercialize technology emerging from the R&D
centers of any of the universities in New Brunswick. However, the following analysis focuses
on the four NB universities that show an established record of attracting federal research
funds: Mount Allison University, Universit? de Moncton, University of New Brunswick
(Fredericton and Saint John), and St. Thomas University.
Figure 16. R&D Expenditure by Funding Sectors?Atlantic Canada & NB Province 1995, 2002
73 Data for figures 16-20 comes from: MPHEC (Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission), R&D Funding
in Atlantic Universities (Fredericton, NB: MPHEC, 2005).
87
Report B
43% 43%
22%
36% 37%
19%
6% 5%
5%
3% 3%
5%
21% 21%
46% 20% 17% 49%
26% 26%
14%
36%
35%
15%
3% 4%
4%
3%
12%
3%
8%
2%
2%
1%2%1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
NB
(140)
Atlantic
(521)
Canada
(13,754)
NB
(184)
Atlantic
(736)
Canada
(22,370)
Federal Government Provincial Government Business Enterprise
Higher Education Private Non-Profit Organizations Foreign
1995 2002
Abundant data is available on R&D activity in NB?s universities, including studies on the
challenges and opportunities for funding and commercializing research in the province (and
Atlantic Canada as a whole). The following data draws on these studies, particularly R&D
Funding in Atlantic Universities published by the Maritime Provinces Higher Education
Commission (MPHEC) in 2005, which provides detailed information on R&D activities in the
NB universities. It is important to identify the assets and challenges currently faced by NB
universities? ICT-related centers in order to increase federal research funds, and to
concentrate new effort to increase links between Moncton?s ICT industry and regional
research centers.
R&D Investments: Universities
Following is an overview of R&D funds available to NB universities, classified by government
levels: federal (longstanding, new, and specific to the Atlantic Provinces), provincial, or local.
Type 1. Long-standing R&D programs are distributed through three granting councils:
? National Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)
? Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC)
? Canada Institute of Health Research (CIHR)
In terms of ITC development, the NSERC program is especially important because it funds
science and engineering projects, while the other two fund social science and health-related
projects. Figure 17 shows that about 8 percent of the total funds from the NSERC granting
council go to universities in Atlantic Canada. The University of New Brunswick received $6.3
million in 2002-2003, while the Universit? de Moncton and Mount Allison University received
88
Report B
New
R&D Programs
(1997-2004)
CFI
Canada Foundation for Innovation
Atlantic Canada:
$81 million (4%)
The Indirect Cost
Program
Atlantic Canada:
$51 million (8%)
New Brunswick
$15 million (0.7%)
New Brunswick
24 Chairs (2%)
CRCP
Canada Research Chairs Program
Atlantic Canada:
94 Chairs (7%)
Figure 17. Long-Standing R&D Programs
Long-Standing
R&D Program
(2002-2003)
NSERC
Natural Science & Engineering
Research Council
SSHRC
Social Science & Humani ties
Research Council
Atlan tic Canada
$38.3 million
(8% of To tal Funds)
Universi t? de
Moncton
($720,000)
Universi t y o f
New Brunswick
($6.3 million)
Moun t Allison
Universi t y
($532,000)
CIHR
Canada Insti tu tes o f
Heal th Research
Ne w Brunswick
Province
$8 million
(1.7% o f To tal Funds)
only $0.5 and $0.7 million, respectively. NSERC funds constitute the most important source
of R&D funding for all three universities.
Type 2. New R&D programs include federal government sources initiated since 1997,
created to expand federal research funding sources. Figure 18 illustrates three new
programs which are described in the following paragraphs.74
Figure 18. New R&D Programs
74 Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC), Momentum?The 2005 Report on University
Research and Knowledge Transfer, 2005. http://www.aucc.ca/publications/auccpubs/research/momentum_e.html.
89
Report B
Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) is an independent corporation created by the federal
government to fund research infrastructure (e.g., computers) and research, with the mandate
to strengthen the capacity of Canadian universities, colleges, research hospitals, and non-
profit research institutions to carry out world-class research and technology development
that benefits Canadians. Between 1997 and 2004, about 4 percent of CFI funds went to
Atlantic Canada universities, and only 0.7 percent to those in New Brunswick.
The Canada Research Chairs Program (CRCP) was created in 2000 by the federal
government as a permanent program to establish 2,000 research professorships (Canada
Research Chairs) in universities across the country by 2008. CRCP invests $300 million a
year to attract and retain some of the world?s most accomplished and promising minds.
Between 2000 and 2004, nearly 2 percent (24 chairs) were awarded to universities in New
Brunswick.
The Indirect Cost Program was created by the federal government to help universities in
Canada (especially small ones) defray the indirect costs of research. Since the program was
initiated in 2001, universities in Atlantic Canada have received $51 million, or 8 percent, of
these funds.
Type 3. Federal Programs Specific to Atlantic Canada are R&D initiatives designed for the
Atlantic Provinces to overcome challenges in respect to R&D and its commercialization.
The Atlantic Innovation Fund (AIF) created in 1987, is administered by the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency (ACOA). Many R&D initiatives require matching funds which often
presents a challenge to Atlantic Canada?s universities. The region?s private sector consists
primarily of small to medium-size industries, with limited resources and funding partners to
support to R&D. And while provincial governments have been able to provide matching
funds in other regions, such provision is relatively new and considerably limited in Atlantic
Canada. To help supply matching funds, the federal government introduced the Atlantic
Innovation Fund within ACOA. Through ACOA the federal government provides an additional
$300 million for investment in the region?s infrastructure, much of it going to universities and
research institutions.75
Between April 2001 and March 2006, ACOA funds have supported $10.6 million in R&D at
the Universit? de Moncton (see Table 7). Through the AIF, ACOA also funds Springboard, a
research commercialization network that involves a consortium of 14 Atlantic universities,
including the four research-oriented universities in New Brunswick. Through Springboard,
smaller universities have access to support services from larger universities with more
experience in technology commercialization.
Type 4. Provincial programs
The New Brunswick Research Innovation Fund (NBIF) is a research fund created by the
provincial government in 2002 to increase the innovation capacity of academic and research
organizations. It includes the Research Innovation Fund, to provide matching funds for CFI,
CIHR, NSERC, and SSHRC grants. It also includes two other initiatives under Programs in
Partnerships: the Research Technicians Initiative and the Research Assistantships Initiative,
both of which are directed to the academic community. (Other NBIF programs, such as the
Enterprise Innovation Fund, the Venture Capital Fund, and the Business Incubator Fund,
concentrate on private sector research.)
75 Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Atlantic Innovation Fund, 2000. http://www.acoa.ca/e/library/aif.pdf
90
Report B
Table 7. ACOA Funding for Universit? de Moncton, April 2001-March 2006
Year
Approved Project Description
ACOA
Assistance Total Cost
2005 Research infrastructure $130,000 $515,490
Travail hors campus pour ?tudiants internationaux $31,950 $95,960
Research projects investigating cellular lipid metabolism $215,732 $431,464 2004
Internship Program $200,000 $266,665
Development of learning object repositories $250,000 $560,000
Commercial Mission to the United States spring 2004 $42,860 $66,060
Recrutement d'un Coordinateur ou d'une coordinatrice $81,000 $81,000
Programme de MBA trilat?ral $41,280 $74,880
Design/Develop. Innovative Thin Film Smart Systems $2,693,780 $3,367,225
2003
?tude de march? et d'orientation pour le Centre $23,246 $48,415
Programme de Partenariat sur l'Exportation $24,222 $53,422
Incubateur d'entreprises/Parc Scientifique - Phase II $2,600,000 $5,150,000
Advanced Optics: Materials, Devices and Applications $3,876,250 $5,589,663
Centre de d'habitation et de technologies environementales $150,000 $769,500
2002
Comp?tition atlantique de g?nie $5,000 $33,034
Develop e-learning tools $57,645 $80,000
Business plan $111,079 $151,000
Export Partnering Program, 2001-2002 $17,100 $33,100
Conference -High Performance Computing Systems/Applications $23,569 $68,569
2001
University resources via internet $63,598 $103,970
TOTAL $10,638,311 $17,539,417
Source: Data obtained from Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
The four Atlantic Canada provinces show low participation in government programs to
support academic science and engineering research?only 4 to 8 percent. Data for New
Brunswick?s universities are even lower, where participation ranges from 0.7 percent to 2
percent. These targeted programs play an important role in helping universities in New
Brunswick improve their participation in federal research funding.
Figure 19. Other Federal and Provincial R&D Programs
AIF
Atlantic Innovation Fund
(ACOA)
$300 million
Other R&D Programs
(1987-2004)
NBIF
New Brunswick Innovation
Foundation (NB Government)
Research Innovation Fund
$3.0 million
Research Technicians Initiative
$1.4 million
Rsch Assistantships Initiatives
$0.8 million
91
Report B
Distribution of Research Funds at Universities in the Province
Figure 20 present an overview of R&D funds received by universities in New Brunswick.
NSERC is by far the most important funding source for all universities in the region. CFI is the
second most important source of research funding, reaching levels close to NSERC for the
2002-2003 funding period. The provincial government continues to have low participation in
total research funding available to the universities in spite of important initiatives such as the
Research Innovation Fund and the Programs in Partnerships within NBIF to support
academic research.
Figure 20. Sponsored Research Funding at Universities in NB, 1997-98 to 2002-03.
NSERC = Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
SSHRC = Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
MRC/CIHR = Medical Research Council or the Canadian Institutes of Health Research
CFI = Canada Foundation for Innovation
CRCP = Canada Research Chairs Program
Prov. Gov. = Provincial Government
92
Report B
93
Report B
At the university level, most R&D funds are channeled into research centers and institutes.
Table 8 lists research centers related to engineering or entrepreneurship at four of the NB
universities. Following the table is a description of some of the most important activities
conducted at ICT and entrepreneurship selected research centers.
Table 8. Engineering and Entrepreneurship Research Centers at Universities in New Brunswick
1. Universit? de Moncton (Moncton campus)
Bureau de soutien ? l'innovation
Centre Assomption de recherche et de d?veloppement en entrepreneuriat (Center for R&D in Entrepreneurship)
Centre de Commercialisation Internationale (Center for International Commercialization)
Centre de multim?dia appliqu?
Centre de recherche en conversion d'?nergie
Groupe de recherche en biochimie
Groupe de recherche en communications, traitement distribu?, langage naturel, programmation logique et bases de
donn?es intelligentes
Groupe de recherche en entreprenariat
Groupe de recherche en information distribu?e et ?ducation sur l?INTERNET
Groupe de recherche sur les couches minces et l'?nergie solaire
UM Scientifique Park
2. University of New Brunswick (Fredericton campus)
CADMI Microelectronics, Inc.
Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership
Centre for Nuclear Energy Research, Inc.
Construction Technology Centre Atlantic, Inc. (CTCA)
Electronic Text Centre
Institute for Materials Visualization and Analysis
Institute of Biomedical Engineering
Information Technology Centre (ITC)
Planetary and Space Science Centre
Wood Science and Technology Centre
3. University of New Brunswick (St. John campus)
Electronic Commerce Centre
4. Mount Allison University (Sackville, NB)
The John Dobson Centre for Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Mount Allison Cluster for Advanced Research-TORCH
ICT-RELATED RESEARCH CENTERS
University of New Brunswick at Fredericton
CADMI Microelectronics, Inc. is a partner in the application of technology. CADMI represents
a true partnership between government, university, and industry to provide state-of-the-art
microelectronics technology transfer to New Brunswick businesses. Established in 1983 and
located on the UNB-Fredericton campus, CADMI specializes in solving industrial problems
through the design of custom circuits and systems for industrial processing and product
development. Incorporated in its own right, CADMI is managed by a board of directors drawn
from the three sponsoring partners.
Information Technology Centre (ITC) was established in 1998 through the support of UNB
and the Canada/New Brunswick Regional Economic Development Agreement to assist and
support the growth of the IT industry in New Brunswick. It strives to make NB a world leader
in the development and marketing of high-quality global IT products and services.
94
Report B
Mount Allison University (Sackville, NB)
Mount Allison Cluster for Advanced Research?TORCH is an infrastructure initiative supported
by the Canada Foundation for Innovation and the New Brunswick Innovation Foundation to
assist Mount Allison research requiring high-performance computing resources.
CENTERS RELATED TO ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Universit? de Moncton
Centre de Commercialisation Internationale (CCI) (Center for International
Commercialization) is funded by the Department of Industry, Science, and Technology
Canada, the Tourism and Economic Development Department of New Brunswick, and ACOA.
CCI offers international internships, studies abroad, and immersion programs through the
Academic Partnership and International Youth Program. CCI actively participates in activities
at institutions such as the NB Economic Council, Greater Moncton Chamber of Commerce,
and Forum for International Business organized by the Francophone Summit.
University of New Brunswick at Fredericton
International Business & Entrepreneurship Center (IBEC). IBEC was formed in 2004 by
merging the Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership (CEL) and the Center for International
Business Studies (CIBS). CEL was established in 1996 in partnership with the Bank of
Montreal to promote and support entrepreneurial activities in the Faculty and on campus.
CIBS was established in 1988 through an endowment from ACOA to promote and support
research and teaching in international business. IBEC developed the Export Partnership
Program (EPP) to promote exports of Canadian goods and services to the New England
market. IBEC and the NB Department of Education work together to improve entrepreneur-
ship courses in the high school curriculum. It has formed a relationship with Babson College
to provide UNB with innovative training and teaching materials in entrepreneurship. Among
its recent activities, IBEC sponsored a conference in Fredericton in October 2006 on
entrepreneurship and skills development for young entrepreneurs in the information,
communications, and technology fields.
University of New Brunswick at Saint John
Electronic Commerce Centre (ECC). UNB-Saint John established ECC in 1997 to foster the
growth of eCommerce and eBusiness among the founding partners, including NBTel, Nortel
Networks, and the Province of New Brunswick. ECC has focused on developing
eCommerce/eBusiness degree programs in the UNBSJ business school.
R&D INVESTMENTS IN THE NB UNIVERSITIES: ASSETS & CHALLENGES
Assets
? Many research centers at NB universities conduct research in ICT engineering and
science fields.
? Two case studies document important research groups in wind energy and in thin films
and photonics at the Universit? de Moncton. Both groups have nationally leading skills in
those fields, as they compete for federal funds.
? ACOA and the provincial government provide matching funds to help applicants to secure
additional federal funds in other programs.
95
Report B
Challenges
Funding through most federal government programs is contingent on applicants providing
matching funds and demonstrating previous grant funding success. The region?s limited
matching capacity hampers the ability of the universities to benefit from both long-standing
(e.g., NSERC) and new (e.g., CFI) federal research funding programs. Forging private sector
partnerships is difficult for NB universities given the limited ability for the private sector to
contribute to R&D; therefore the region would benefit from initiatives such as Springboard for
collaborative university-based technology transfer.
While many provincial R&D centers conduct engineering and science research, there are few
linkages with NB industry. Interviews indicate that little current research benefits ICT
business in Moncton. The knowledge-based entrepreneurial process that exists in Moncton
is not the result of the commercialization of new products developed at the local university.
More effort needs to be made to help researchers with commercialization, and to re-evaluate
the effectiveness of the present IP regime.
ACTION PLAN TO ACCELERATE MONCTON?S KNOWLEDGE-BASED GROWTH
Near - te rm Ac t ion I tems
? Develop a bilingual (French and English) website that lists the projects in NB universities?
research centers. Include the names, credentials, and email addresses of researchers
who are interested in consulting with the private sector.
? The provincial government and the universities should develop a formal policy that
creates incentives for professors to work with the local private sector.
? Strengthen Springboard activities to facilitate the participation of the private sector in
technology commercialization activities.
Longer te rm Ac t ion I tems
? Increase the provincial matching-funds capacity.
? Develop a support system to commercialize new products emerging from academic
research groups, initially in wind energy and in thin films and photonics at the Universit?
de Moncton, perhaps through the Moncton Technology Commercialization Center.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
Preferred IP Policies and Technology Transfer Practices
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), includes among its
membership and its active relationships over 100 countries; Canada is an original member
country. The OECD?s Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy collects empirical
evidence on the legal and regulatory frameworks that govern IP at public research
organizations. Across OECD countries, IP ownership policies are shifting toward institutional
ownership of academic inventions by transferring title from governments or individual
researchers to public research organizations. Following the U.S. lead, ?nearly all other OECD
member countries have reformed research funding regulations or employment laws to allow
research institutions to file, own, and license the IP generated with public research funds.?76
76 ?Patents And Innovation: Trends And Policy Challenges,? OECD, 2004, page 20 ??it is possible that the results
under-estimate the total amount of academic patenting in some countries, especially those in which public
96
Report B
The rationale is that ownership by public research organizations provides greater legal
certainty, lowers transaction costs and fosters better channels for technology transfer.
International tech transfer practitioners hold the view that research institutions are well
positioned to implement management structures, assess patent values, and pursue
commercialization of inventions.77
IP Ownership: The Oxford and Cambridge Model
New Brunswick?s university-based R&D path for technology transfer could be accelerated
and optimized if the current inventor-owned IP policy was revised to an institution-owned
policy in conformance with the international trend. The IP policy of the premier British
research institutions may provide a lesson in point. Both Oxford and Cambridge Universities
have struggled with IP ownership institutional policy. Cambridge recognized that with an
inventor-owned IP policy, a supportive infrastructure was needed to capture opportunities for
the application of new knowledge. A few years ago Cambridge began a re-evaluation of its IP
ownership policy78 and found that ??the University's policy differs from other leading UK
research universities in that it does not make claim to all the intellectual property generated
by its employees in the normal course of their duties.? In mid-2002, the Joint Report of the
Council and the General Board on the ownership of intellectual property rights found that
?...given the inconsistency in the current policy, it is hard to justify its continuation.?
Inventors without specialist advice were found to be ??vulnerable to predatory external
parties.? The Report went further to recommend that under most circumstances ?...the
University should assert ownership over all intellectual property generated by its employees
in the normal course of their duties.?
The three most reasonable implementation options for the institution included taking
ownership of all intellectual property that was:
? generated past, present, and future by all employees where it has not been
licensed, assigned, or is in any other way subject to third-party obligations;
? created by all employees after an agreed date
? created by new employees who join after an agreed date
The Cambridge Joint Report recognized that Oxford had chosen in 1995 to take ownerhsip of
all IP created by all employees after an agreed date. Cambridge chose the same option on
July 22, 2002. These same three options could be recommended for consideration by New
Brunswick?s research institutions. The trade to the inventors in the case of Cambridge took
the form of a generous royalty schedule: 90 percent of the first ?20,000, then 70 percent of
the next ?40,000 and then 50 percent of the next ?40,000, far more generous than the
normal U.S. university royalty-sharing schedule.
Notwithstanding the minority views of Canadian proponents for inventor-owned IP policies,79
from a Canadian national perspective, the Prime Minister?s Advisory Council on Science and
research organizations do not automatically claim title to inventions or cede them to industry or individual
inventors.? http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/12/24508541.pdf
77 Analysis of the Legal Framework for Patent Ownership in Publicly Funded Research Institutions, Andrew F.
Christie et. al., Research Evaluation Programme Higher Education Group, ?The common points shared by the UK
and Canadian proposals for reform of IP management in publicly funded research bodies can be summarized as
follows: IP should be vested in the research bodies?? ISBN 0 642 77331 9 (Electronic Version) Commonwealth of
Australia 2003 accessed on line June 5, 2006
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/research_sector/publications_resources/other_publications/patent_ownership_
in_publicly_funded_research_institutions.htm
78 http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2001-02/weekly/5894/15.html
79 ?Commercialization Productivity of Canadian Universities? Bruce P. Clayman, Simon Fraser University, AUTM
presentation www.sfu.ca/vpresearch/vp-research/ICUR.ppt Slide 21. accessed online June 5, 2006
97
Report B
Technology ?strongly believes that university ownership of IP (either in the first instance or
through assignment) would greatly increase the number of commercialization opportunities
emanating from university-based research. University researchers do not need to own IP in
order to benefit from successful commercialization undertakings??. It was also
recommended that ??in those universities where the ownership of such IP resides with the
researcher(s), the IP must be assigned to the university for possible commercialization
(subject to appropriate sharing of benefits).?80 The Panel flatly reports that ??vesting IP
ownership with university researchers is one of the single biggest factors accounting for lost
commercialization opportunities in Canada.?81 Nevertheless, throughout Canada, rules on IP
ownership by universities vary across Provinces, and range from the sponsor retaining the
sole ownership of the invention, to the inventor owning the invention, and to the university
having the sole ownership, with considerable variations within.82 Persuasive arguments are
made that IP ownership policies are directly related to the return on investment made in
research. The Prime Minister?s panel on the commercialization of university research
believes that ?the best way to measure Canada?s commercialization performance is to
examine rates of return on investment. The ideal benchmark would be return on investment
measures for American universities which are considered to be world leaders in this area.?83
The favorable U.S. position relative to Canada is illustrated in Figure 21.84 The graph
demonstrates that colleges and universities in the U.S. enjoy a return on investment
approximately three times greater than that of Canadian universities. In the context of ROI
with the United States as an example, it is suggested by the Standing Committee that ??one
of the key (U.S.) policies which was made in 1980 was to pass legislation to say from now on
when researchers develop intellectual property it won?t belong to the government, it will
belong to the university where the research is performed with the obligation for that
university to organize a commercialization office and to commercialize in such a way that it
favors the American enterprises and preferably the SMEs.?85 Most research performed at
New Brunswick universities is currently conducted under an IP policy that runs contrary to the
globally preferred model whereby IP ownership devolves upon the institution rather than to
the inventor, or is substantially shared between the two.
Moncton: Existing IP Practices
The present IP policy results from a collective bargaining agreement86 that established the
relationship between researchers and the four primary research universities in New
Brunswick. The agreement places IP rights and the decision of whether or not to take a first
step toward commercialization in the hands of the inventor exclusively, since ?the
employee(s) who is the owner of intellectual property is solely responsible for the decision to
80 Public Investments in University Research: Reaping the Benefits, Report of the Expert Panel on the
Commercialization of University Research Presented to: The Prime Minister?s Advisory Council on Science and
Technology, May 4, 1999 page 3 http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/C2-441-1999E.pdf http://acst-
ccst.gc.ca/comm/rpaper_html/report_title_e.html
81 Ibid. page 19.
82 Industry Canada Research Publications Program, University Research and the Commercialization of Intellectual
Property in Canada, Occasional Paper Number 21 April 1999, Table 17 and page 79.
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/ineas-aes.nsf/vwapj/op21e.pdf/$FILE/op21e.pdf
83 Ibid page 16.
84 See ?MATC: Medical and Assistive Technologies Consortium SWOT Analysis for the Medical and Assistive
Technologies Sector in Ontario and Western New York,? Soloninka and Associates, May 2002.
http://www.htx.ca/HTX/DesktopModules/Links/..%5C..%5CFiles%5ClocalDocuments%5CSWOT%20Report.pdf
85 ?A Canadian Innovation Agenda for the Twenty-First Century, Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on
Industry, Science and Technology,? Susan Whelan, M.P. Chair, June 2001.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/infocomdoc/37/1/INST/studies/reports/indu04/22-ch10-e.htm
86 http://www.unb.ca/hr/aunbt/art38.html
98
Report B
Figure 21. Canada and U.S. Universities: A Comparison of Return on Investment
of whether or not commercialize or not to commercialize such intellectual property.?87 An
equivalent situation exists at non-profit research institutions Moncton General Hospital and
the Atlantic Cancer Research Institute.88 The inventor-owned IP policy has been tied to the
collective bargaining agreement for many years; it is passionately defended in principle and
is unlikely to be revised without higher intervention or intense give-and-take negotiation.89
Exceptions to the general rule in New Brunswick do exist but are limited in scope and
application. For example, at UNB, when IP has been developed with the use of UNB
resources over and above normal UNB resources, the faculty member is required to enter
into an IP agreement with UNB specifying the share of net proceeds. In the absence of an
agreement, the fees, royalties, or other income shall be shared 50:50 between UNB and the
faculty member. In addition, if a faculty member decides to commercialize an intellectual
property produced with UNB resources over and above normal University resources, the
faculty member must grant UNB a license to use the property, including the right to grant
others the right to use the work on certain terms and conditions.90 On the public side,
resources ?over and above normal? include funds from the Granting Councils (NSERC, CIHR
and SSHRC). The funds constitute the bulk of public research dollars and are a significant
source for university research funds. Private funding sources would sometimes qualify as
well. Other normal exceptions concern the copyright on artistic and literary works including a
professor?s own course materials.
The economic effect of an inventor-owned IP policy is quite significant in the long term view,
and should be examined in spite of its controversial nature. The threat looms that the
university research inventor may refuse to participate in any (or all) commercialization
initiatives. Non-participation might take endless forms, but could include:
87 38.04(a)
88 http://www.bereskinparr.com/English/publications/pdf/Ownership-of-IP.pdf
89 The Canadian Association of University Teachers, Intellectual Property and Academic Staff ?Because
ownership by academic staff of their creative works plays an important role in protecting scholarly independence
and integrity, academic staff and their associations must forcefully protect intellectual property rights at the
negotiating table.? http://www.caut.ca/en/about/committees/dp_intellectualproperty.pdf
90 30.04 (d)
99
Report B
? An inventor holds the right to initiate or refrain from taking a first step toward
commercialization; and also to orchestrate what that first step would be and with whom it
is taken in the form of an industry partner. As a mere co-owner of a patent, the university
could not grant exploitation licensing rights without the agreement of the inventor co-
owner. In the event of a conflict, licensing would be paralyzed.91
? A for-profit commercial entity, including a foreign entity doing business primarily beyond
the borders of Canada, without regard to any other interest, could negotiate directly with
an inventor and contract for IP management or even ownership of an inventive act
performed by a researcher at a university in New Brunswick. Technologies can be
commercialized outside the province with economic return of solely in the form of an
individual financial return to the inventor. The Prime Minister?s Advisory Council on
Science and Technology reported that ?faculty ownership of publicly funded IP is creating
a disturbing situation in Canada... running a technology supply house for other
countries.?92
? Inventors who work on cutting edge technologies are often unskilled in business
administration, IP law, and the nuances of technology licensing. The institution is in a
weak position to control the fate of IP arising from its campus if the inventor opts to
negotiate outside the institution?s office of technology transfer.
As recently as 1999/2000, the three federal Granting Councils invested almost $1 billion
dollars in university research. Full disclosure by researchers of any IP generated from those
federally funded research grants was not required and ownership of any resulting IP was not
claimed by government.
A research institution may exercise a ?research exemption? under 38.05(a) on its campus,
but only at the discretion of the inventor and only for non-commercial applications in the
form of further research undertaken by other researchers at the institution. The question is
left open whether any commercial benefit ultimately resulting from further research would be
the property of the first inventor.
A university will make investments in research infrastructure (in the form of labs and
equipment) in order to accrue reputation as a research center, increase its ability to attract
research funds, and support regional economic development. However, there is no
motivation for a university to undertake technology transfer unless an inventor opts to assign
the institution IP rights for management, licensing, and/or commercialization. The
motivation for an inventor to commercialize stems from the institution?s ability to establish
an effective commercialization infrastructure on and off the campus, and to market these
services to their faculty. When inventor ownership is the rule, inventions are delicately pulled
out of the lab and are not pushed out by act of law.
Action Items
? A renegotiated collective bargaining agreement to redistribute IP ownership between
university-based researchers and their host institutions would contribute toward greater
technology transfer and commercialization activity in New Brunswick.
? Develop Springboard?s tech transfer and commercialization operation more fully
throughout New Brunswick, thereby demonstrating the benefits of University IP
ownership over inventor-owned.
91 The Prime Minister?s Advisory Council, page 19
92 ibid at ?4.1.2
100
Report B
101
Report B
KEY OBJECTIVE 4: Partnership and Alliances
Foster and leverage national and international value-added partnerships and alliances.
Vision:
Greater Moncton?s existing resources and assets will realize larger markets due to
enhanced national and global alliances and partnerships.
Challenge:
Building regional agreement and support for the value of national and international
networks and partnerships for quality research and education and targeted economic
development
Strategies:
? Build on the region?s existing international programs and activities and
characteristics of openness, tolerance, and friendliness to develop national and
global partnerships.
? Promote programs that recruit talented, entrepreneurial immigrants.
Specific Actions:
? Target several carefully chosen partnerships, alliances, and opportunities for
collaboration that would benefit Greater Moncton?s academic and business sectors
such as: Creative Learning Institute in Digital Media, Bioscience.
? Leverage IC? Institute?s existing regional economic development programs with
Mexico, Portugal, and Poland as well as IC? Institute?s international networks and
international conferences.
? Promote a strategic alliance with Austin Technology Incubator and incubators
worldwide in target industry sectors.
? Foster ?Immigrant Entrepreneurship.? Organize international student exchange
focused on entrepreneurship and business venturing such as Universit? de Moncton
student exchange and entrepreneurship competition with students from France,
Poland, Portugal, and Austin increasing international connections and exposure.
? Explore links to IC? Institute?s Master of Science in Science and Technology
Commercialization (http://msstc.ic2.org/). Work to collaborate on research and
development and innovation with other regions and countries such as Russia,
Portugal, and Poland using Canada as a gateway to the Americas.
ECONOMIC BENCHMARKING: Model for Success
In today?s expanding global economy, cities increasingly recognize that they face global
competition to attract local investment. A key task for municipal policymakers is to identify
the policies that have led competing cities to success, and to tailor these policies to the local
environment. Economic benchmarking compares one city to another of similar size and basic
assets in order to examine strategies and policies to accelerate knowledge-based growth.
102
Report B
MONCTON?A SMALL CITY WITH HIGH TECHNOLOGY GOALS
The IC? Institute has a long record of advising cities in America, Asia, and Europe to
accelerate knowledge-based growth, but Moncton has two unique characteristics that have
especially pleased and challenged the IC? team. The first is the richness of the data and
information available on Moncton?s economy and quality of life, which facilitates the design
of local development policies. Second, the local community (in particular, businesses and
government) has high expectations to be major players in the research and production of
new technology, which is unusual for a city of Moncton?s size.
In 2006 the consulting firm KPMG released a study entitled Competitive Alternatives
Highlights?KPMG?s Guide to International Business Costs.93 The study compares business
costs in North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. Data covers 128 cities in nine countries:
Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, Singapore, the United Kingdom,
and the United States. Moncton ranks number two as the lowest-cost city in Canada and
number three among the 95 largest cities in the study. The study estimates that Atlantic
Canada?s business costs were up to 10 percent less than in the United States. However,
Moncton faces serious challenges to attain high rank among the world?s knowledge cities.
To forge a path to accelerate its knowledge-based economy, Moncton may learn from other
cities that have been successful in the process.
Choosing a Benchmark City for Moncton
A search for ?the? benchmark city for Moncton began in the United States, because of our
familiarity with the U.S. economic profile, and the abundance of information available on U.S.
cities, including policy development. In short, U.S. cities with a large concentration of
technology companies are usually larger than Moncton.94 Only three cities show a high
degree of high-tech activity with a population of ?less than one million?: Ventura, California;
Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Wichita, Kansas. Albuquerque?s high-tech industry flourished
because of a political decision in Washington, DC to divert large defense funds to the city
(e.g., to Los Alamos and Sandia National Labs). Wichita is a hub for manufacturing aircraft ?
an industry fueled by a large and successful oil industry in the last century. Ventura County
has the Port of Hueneme, the only deep-water port between Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Since Moncton does not have a deep-water port, a large oil industry, or the political clout to
attract large defense funds, none of these cities provide an appropriate benchmark.
Moreover, each of these U.S. cities is at least five times the size of Moncton.
The Nordic countries of Finland, Sweden, and Norway take the lead in current knowledge
society indicators, and many of their successful knowledge cities are small. Based on the
experience of IC? team members who teach and perform business consultancy abroad, three
Norwegian cities were examined as potential benchmark cities for Moncton: Oslo, Bergen,
and Stavanger. As outlined in Table 9, Oslo is one of the most expensive places in the world
to live and eight times the size of Moncton. Bergen and Stavanger both have a population
93 This study is available at http://www.competitivealternatives.com.
94 Using a methodology from the Milken Institute (America?s High-Tech Economy?Top Technology Centers (Santa
Monica, CA: Milken Institute, 1999) and data from the 2000 Census of Manufacturing, we developed a high-tech
agglomeration index for the 100 largest metropolitan areas in the United States (see Appendix E). The larger the
value of the index, the more high-tech economic activity is concentrated in the metropolitan area. San Jose, the
heart of Silicon Valley, shows the largest index (7.33) in the sample. One fact that emerged from this table is that
only cities with a population greater than 1 million have a high-tech agglomeration index above the average for
our sample of cities (1.1).
103
Report B
size closer to Moncton and have been successful in developing an important knowledge-
based industry; however, their knowledge-based industry has been fueled by oil wealth.
Table 9. Cities Considered for Moncton Benchmark
Countr
y
Cit
y
Inde
x?
Populatio
n
Note
s
Reason not
chose
n
Air capital of the U
S
National Institute for Aviation Research at Wichita State Universit
y
Major aircraft manufacturing cente
r
Major employers: Boeing, Cessna, Raytheon, Bombardier, Spirit Aerosystem
s
Intel employs over 5,000 person
s
Sandia National Laboratories at Kirtland AFB; Univ. of New Mexic
o
Port of Hueneme, the only deep-water port between LA and S
F
US Naval Bas
e
Technical Corridor 101 (concentration of high-tech industries
)
Oil capital of Norwa
y
Corporations are BP, ConocoPhillips, Shell, ExxonMobil, Total and Statoi
l
IBM will locate international venture on oil and gas in Stavenge
r
Strong research environment, varied high-tech industrial secto
r
Touris
m
University of Oslo -- 30,000 students, 5,000 staf
f
Norwegian School of Information Technolog
y
Too bi
g
World's most expensive place to live in 2006, up from 3rd place in 2005
.
?
? High-tech agglomeration inde
x
NA= not available
. ? According to
The Economist
.
Wichita, K
S
A
lbuquerqu
e,
N
M
Ventura
County, C
A
Stavenge
r
Berge
n
Emerging aviation mfg. center; Private spaceport supported by state
governmen
t
45,000 people employed in oil and gas industry -- 50% of Norwegian oil &
industr
y
40% of Norway's exports concentrated in oil and gas, maritime and fishing
industr
y
712,73
8
753,19
7
Osl
o
0.8
5
545,20
0
0.4
6
0.7
0
N
A
173,13
2
N
A
213,58
5
N
A
811,68
8
Most high-tech
industries relate
to
oil & gas
industrie
s
Oil money
financed aircraft
industr
y
Majority of R&
D
is supported by
federal
governmen
t
NW section of
Greater Los
Angeles Are
a
Most high-tech
industries relate
to
oil & gas
industrie
s
104
Report B
Table 9. continued.
Countr
y
Cit
y
Inde
x?
Populatio
n
Note
s
Reason not
chose
n
Central economic hub of southwestern Finlan
d
Port of Turk
u
Large oil industr
y
174,82
5
University of Turku has 18,000 student
s
Helsinki-Vantaa International Airpor
t
Vantaa Centre for Environmental Affair
s
Aviapolis has growing number of international businesse
s
Heureka Science Center (opened to public in 1989
)
Univ. of Tampere has 2,100 staff & 15,400 student
s
Tampere University of Technology has 10,000 student
s
Regea Institute for Regenerative Medicine
Hermia Science Park - 150 companie
s
Headquarters of Nokia and 6 division
s
University of Technology has 3,190 staff & 15,000 student
s
Technical Research Centre of Finland has 1,900 employee
s
Oil and gas industry is major industr
y
560,00
0
Capital of Finlan
d
Too bi
g
Nokia Research Center headquarter
s
? High-tech agglomeration inde
x
NA= not available
.
Tamper
e
Espo
o
Turku Science Park hosts over 300 companies in biotech and Info
T
Turk
u
Helsink
i
N
A
N
A
184,95
6
Vanta
a
Very close to
Helsink
i
Very close to
Helsink
i
N
A
N
A
229,50
0
Very close to
Helsink
i
Very close to
Helsink
i
201,27
1
N
A
105
Report B
Finland is the second most competitive economy in the world according to the 2006-2007
Global Competitiveness Report,95 and enjoys a large endowment of smaller cities with a
concentration of high-tech activity. Helsinki?s economic base is the oil and gas industry and
its population is five times the size of Moncton. Vantaa, Espoo, Tampere, and Turku are
located very close to Helsinki, and, while smaller than Helsinki, are still much larger than
Moncton. The city of Oulu is not close to any large city, does not have an important oil
industry, and has a population of 126,122?characteristics very similar to Moncton.
Oulu ?Small In Size, Big In Technology
Oulu, located close to the Artic Circle about 400 miles north of Helsinki (see map), is the
sixth largest city in Finland and promotes economic development with the slogan ?Small in
Size, Big in Technology.? Exceptional technological transformation has occurred over the
past thirty years ? from large-scale industries that depend on natural resources, to
knowledge-based industries. Oulu?s current city profile is shown in Table 10.
Table 10. Reasons why Oulu, Finland was chosen as Moncton's Benchmark City
General: Oulu is one of Finland?s most successful regions
Sixth largest city in Finland
First in international competitiveness?
First on the European Innovation Scoreboard?
Well-connected by air, water, and train
Population: 129,000
Universities: educational opportunities
University of Oulu has 3,100 staff and 15,800 students
Oulu Polytechnic has 7,700 students
Research institutions: information technology is growing
VTT Electronics
Centre for Wireless Communications
Infotech Oulu within U. of Oulu has 500 staff
Medialab Oulu
Private sector: information technology is growing
Biocenter Oulu within U. of Oulu has 270 staff
Technopolis science park has 700 companies with 9,000 personnel (est. 1982)
Nokia has 8 divisions located in Oulu with 4,600 employees
Polar Electro (measuring & controlling devices manufacturer)
High-technology clusters: industrial clusters with employment in 2002
High-tech cluster: 800 enterprises with 15,000 employees?
Information technology cluster: 260 companies with 8,467 employees
Content and media cluster: 1,289 employees
Medical cluster: 3,718 employees
Biocluster: 257 employees
Environmental cluster: 997 employees
*Source: The Lisbon Review, World Economic Forum, 2004.
**Source: European Commission, 20
***Source: Statistics Finland, 2002.04.
95 The 2006-2007 Global Competitiveness Report (published by the World Economic Forum) found that the
Nordic countries were on top in relation to factors such as the information society, liberalization, innovation and
research policy, network industries, efficient and integrated financial services, enterprise environment, social
inclusion, and sustainable development.
106
Report B
The Beginnings
Oulu University opened in 1959, and its Department of Electrical Engineering was
established in 1966. Through active participation to develop local knowledge-based
industries and to attain R&D investments from the federal government in the 1970s, the
Department of Electrical Engineering provided the seeds for Oulu?s rapid knowledge-based
growth in the following decades. Low
labor costs and a large supply of an
educated workforce were major factors in
getting new electronics industries to invest
in Oulu. One of the most important
companies to locate in the city was Nokia,
which began production of U.S. military
radio equipment in Oulu in 1972. The
University of Oulu?s active role was an
important factor to attract Nokia to the
city. In 1974, the Finnish government
created the Technical Research Center in
Oulu as part of a national regional
decentralization policy. The center
developed new mobile technologies and
was a major employer of engineers
graduating from Oulu University?s
Department of Electrical Engineering.
In 1984, Oulu proclaimed itself a
technology city. As expressed in the Oulu
2006 Growth Agreement, ?It was a bold
bet, even daring, but it was also
foresighted with sufficiently high goals.?96
In 1982, a joint effort between the city of
Oulu, the University of Oulu, and local
businesses was successful in creating the
first technology park in a Nordic country,
The Technopolis. Although the park was
initially small, its symbolic value was
important. The park mission was not only
to support R&D activities, but also to
facilitate technology commercialization.
Oulu Today
Today two large universities are located in Oulu. Oulu University has a vibrant science and
learning community of 15,300 students; Oulu University of Applied Sciences (formerly known
as Oulu Polytechnic), with approximately 8,000 students, is one of the largest universities of
applied sciences in Finland.
The city?s reputation has spread beyond Finland?s borders: in a distant, cold, dark North, a
city exists where the world?s hottest technology is produced and researched; that city has
become a global leader in wireless communication, thanks to a strong R&D base. In 1999,
per capita R&D expenditure was three times higher than the national mean.
96 Oulu 2006 Growth Agreement, http://www.oulu.ouk.fi/kasvusopimus/english/index.html.
107
Report B
Hourly flights connect Helsinki and Stockholm to Oulu?s international airport?the second
busiest airport in Finland after Helsinki-Vantaa. Oulu represents an important logistics
center; it is located on a harbor on the coast of the Gulf of Bothnia and also provides major
land transportation facilities. The Technopolis Oulu City Center is an impressive new building
of 11,000 square meters hosting over 600 companies and employing 8,000 people.
Behind Oulu?s Success
Strong linkages exist between the university and
the local private sector, and a large portion of
public funding is connected to programs that
require a university to cooperate with an industry
partner.
Oulu?s development strategy concentrates on a
few important factors that are handled by large,
active networks between government, university,
and business sectors. The modest size of the city
has facilitated dynamic networks, and individuals
and firms work closely together on joint projects
through strategic interactions. Two large technical
universities provide a large supply of high quality
university graduates and contribute to local
economic development by working closely with the
local industries and the local government on
technology initiatives.
NEAR-TERM ACTION ITEMS
Moncton can learn from Oulu?s success story. Many of the actions taken by Oulu?s network
of government, university, and private sector initiatives have already been suggested for
Moncton in this report. One thing is clear in Oulu?s beginnings as a high-tech city: Oulu
University?s Department of Electrical Engineering played a key role. The department?s
activities proved crucial to Oulu?s transformation from a local economy based on natural
resource industries to a techno-economy dominated by information technology (data
communication, software production, and electronics). The importance of a local university
is underscored yet again. In Moncton, the role of the Universit? de Moncton is indeed
critical, but enrollment is limited to students who are fluent in French. Moncton is
challenged to expand Anglophone university capacity, especially in information technology
course offerings, in order to raise rates of Anglophone university graduates with IT skills to
meet regional industry demand and economic goals. Since Moncton is a bi-lingual city,
education excellence is required in both sectors, as well as communication between
disciplines, universities, and across languages.
Oulu demonstrates the importance of incubating technology companies. Moncton should
move forward with the recommended near-term plan to develop a Technology
Commercialization Center, and, longer-term, the vision of a Technology Park.
In the case of Oulu, a large portion of public funding is connected to programs where the
university is required to cooperate with a partner in industry. On the contrary, few linkages
108
Report B
exist between industry and research conducted at universities in New Brunswick aside from
ACOA/AIF research funding. More incentives for professors to work with the local private
sector should be implemented, especially through Springboard programs expanded to
enhance technology transfer and commercialization activities in the province.
One of Oulu?s most important assets is the large R&D expenditure in the city. However,
Moncton (and the Atlantic region as a whole) has experienced bottlenecks in the effort to
attract funding from the Canadian research programs. It is important to increase provincial
funding in order to overcome the matching funds limitations. Increasing the rate of
technology commercialization in Moncton includes a support system to commercialize new
products emerging from research groups.
CASE STUDY: Thin Films and Photonics Research Group (GCMP)
Interview with Professor Pandurang Ashrit, Director GCMP, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy,
Universit? de Moncton
Background
Professor Pandurang Ashrit has served as the Director of the Thin Films and
Photonics Research Group (GCMP) since 1998. The GCMP was founded in 1984 to
undertake fundamental and applied research in the area of thin films and optics.
The core research team presently consists of seven physics professors, one
chemistry professor, a Canada Research Chair (CRC) in photonics, four affiliate
professors from the Universit? de Moncton and Mt. Allison University, two research
associates, eight post-doctoral researchers, two research assistants, two project
managers, eight master?s students, and two research technicians. An additional six
or seven research personnel will be hired before the end of 2006. The entire group,
including all associates, consists of about 35 members who work on a project-by-
project basis. (Dr. Ashrit is confident that masters and post-doctoral students are
well represented in the group, but he hopes to involve more PhD students in future
projects.) In addition, the GCMP collaborates on research papers and other
initiatives with a number of international scholars and industrial partners.
The group works in well-equipped laboratories that include a Class 100 clean room
facility for the preparation, characterization and manipulation of low-dimension
materials, generally called advanced materials (nanoparticles, photonic crystals,
quantum dots) in the size range of 5 to 200 nanometers. These advanced coatings
and materials, as well as their associated phenomena, are studied to understand
their properties and for their applications in the area of optics, photonics, energy
efficiency, and instrumentation. Among GCMP?s newly acquired advanced
equipment is a laser-assisted molecular beam deposition (LAMBD), which relies on
high-temperature chemistry among various gases and metals that occurs in the
presence of blue plasma. (The LAMBD is only available in two places: the GCMP and
Stanford University.)
The properties of materials in thin film and nanostructure form can be controlled in a
way that is not possible in their natural state. Advanced materials are created
through manipulation of a material?s nanostructure to implant new properties and
enhance their relevant performance. One example is the desire to control solar
energy (heat and light) passing through a window into a room. The group?s goal is to
create parameters for this control: in mass production and over large areas. Surface
109
Report B
selective coatings, chromogenic coatings, low-E coatings, thermal conductivity, and
advanced optical instrumentation represent the greatest potential for
commercialization.
Assets and Challenges
Funding: A number of different agencies have funded the group?s activities over the
years, including Natural Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and the
Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI). The initial CFI grants have been
instrumental in the purchase of equipment and the creation of a photonics laboratory
as a seed-point for the present growth of GCMP. Major funding to GCMP also has
come from the Atlantic Innovation Fund (AIF) initiative, with matching funds from
industrial partners; the Canadian Space Agency (CSA); New Brunswick Innovation
Funds (NBIF); and Universit? de Moncton. Innovative projects and group dynamism
has led to repeated AIF funding, including an initial project entitled ?Advanced
Optics,? and a second one called ?Innovative Thin Film Smart Systems.? Both of
these projects rely on over ten industrial partners from regional, national, and
international private sectors. Dr. Ashrit?s group is unique to have received funds in
both AIF rounds. Roughly half of all funding was invested in infrastructure and
instrumentation. Academic collaborations include world-renowned academic
institutions in Switzerland, Italy, France, USA, India, and across Canada.
Commercialization: GCMP has a significant history of successfully commercializing
its technology and inventions, and Professor Ashrit himself has been instrumental in
guiding these efforts. Some years ago, three researchers in the group formed Optik
Instruments, to build and sell a new generation of ellipsometers. After securing initial
success, the team sold the company rather than abandon academia to pursue the
new commercial venture full time.
Today, the GCMP?s inventions are knowledge assets that are ripe for up-scaling and
commercialization. Care should be taken that these assets are committed in a way
that neither limits their commercialization potential, nor denies the Universit? de
Moncton fulfillment of its dual publication and teaching missions. Within a year,
Professor Ashrit anticipates hiring a full-time commercialization manager for the
group ? someone with both scientific and business expertise. Providing outside
management for the company will allow the research group to preserve the
momentum they have achieved in the laboratory.
Intellectual property: Important innovations in optics, photonics, thin films and
materials are evident in the group?s accomplishments. Work related to disclosures
and patent protection are managed by Rejean Hall and Giselle Leveque at the
Universit? de Moncton; David Foord at UNB, in a collaboration with Springboard; and
an Ottawa-based IP attorney. As a result of AIF funding, negotiations are underway
post-disclosure to determine relative ownership of rights between the institution and
the inventor in whose name patents are filed. The group is creating a clear
connection between the fundamental research and its applications.
ENLARGING NETWORKS
The necessary networks to accelerate Moncton?s economic development begins with: an
angel network, an entrepreneurs? network, a formal internship program, and the
development of the MTCC to bring cross-cultural networking between these related groups.
110
Report B
As individuals ?pool? personal contacts outside of Moncton, a larger organic network will
evolve to the international scale. But planned international networking is also
recommended: with the cities of Austin, Texas (and through IC? Institute the cities of Lodz,
Poland; Lisbon, Portugal); and also Oulu, Finland. City policy makers should investigate
these possibilities methodically, both as models and as potential partners in development.
111
Report B
KEY OBJECTIVE 5: Promote a Common Vision for Development
Promote a common vision with coordinated action initiatives targeted to brand greater
Moncton as an important emerging center of technology-based entrepreneurship and
business development.
Vision:
The community will share a positive image of Greater Moncton that reflects the current
realities as well as the vision of tomorrow.
Overall
? Importance of Civic Leaders ? business, academic, and government ? having unified
regional visions and actions ? use this report and the targeted action initiatives as a
means to work toward increased regional cooperation to build a regional view of how
best to:
? Accelerate technology-based business development in established and emerging
industry clusters with the greatest growth potential.
? Develop Greater Moncton as an emerging center of technology-based
entrepreneurship.
? Foster academic and research excellence that is specifically linked to regional
economic development.
? Foster and leverage regional, national, and global value-added partnerships and
alliances.
Challenges:
? Existing regionalism
? Bilingual requirements
Strategies:
? Develop a coordinated media program: Newspapers, magazines, TV.
? From 1985 to 1995, Austin, Texas successfully changed its brand from a university
and government town in ranch and cowboy country to a technology growth and
entrepreneurial region that attracted talent and VC funds from Silicon Valley and
Boston and to a global image as an international ?Technopolis.?
? A land development initiative, as part of the Moncton Technology and
Commercialization Center (MTCC), could be a viable long-term strategy for anchoring
Moncton?s ICT and R&D activities for years to come and branding Moncton as a
leading center of innovation and entrepreneurship in Canada. In the near term,
?bioinformatics? is seen as a bridge between on-going R&D activity and ICT
companies in the area, especially if MTCC provides both commercialization services
for Moncton?s R&D centers and incubation services for ICT companies.
Specific Actions:
? Work to transform how regional, national, and global media write, talk, and show the
region by publicizing the region?s significant entrepreneurial heritage and celebrating
Greater Moncton?s leaders and entrepreneurs.
? Engage local newspaper and other press and media to:
o Profile Business and Civic (public) entrepreneurs and leaders.
112
Report B
o Celebrate Entrepreneurial business successes and examining failures.
o Recognize entrepreneurs and public-private leaders who have returned to
Moncton.
? Fund college and university faculty and students to compile research reports on
Greater Moncton?s programs that illustrate and exemplify the region?s creative and
innovative activities.
? Promote international workshops and events such as an international gaming
competition.
? Market regional educational and business development assets as a package of
resources for fostering successful entrepreneurship.
CLOSER REGIONAL NETWORKS AND LOCAL EXPERTISE
BUILDING KNOWLEDGE-BASED INFRASTRUCTURE IN MONCTON
Bioinformatics: The Bridge between ICT and Research & Development (R&D) Centers
Moncton?s dual assets in ICT and the R&D sectors provide a strong base for regional
development, which will increase with communication across these sectors. The strength of
the ICT sector in Moncton resides in the organic development of commercial firms in the
private sector, many of which have ?bootstrapped? their way to profitability without extensive
venture capital or governmental support. The R&D centers, on the other hand, have thrived
by attracting grant money to build research capacity at the Universit? de Moncton and the
two local hospitals, but have been less successful to commercialize emerging technology
from the laboratories.
The pre-existing niche of ?bioinformatics? provides one arena in which these two areas of
excellence can work together to achieve greater regional strength. The growing areas of
medical informatics, bio-markers, bio-statistics, health informatics, and bioinformatics in
general presents a clear opportunity to brand Moncton as a center of excellence by bridging
ICT and R&D efforts to increase both business and research. Housing representatives from
the IT departments of Moncton?s two hospitals in the proposed MTCC would be one way to
effectively raise the profile community-wide and encourage business development in
bioinformatics.
Beaus?jour Regional Health Authority
One potential partner to initiate the bioinformatics bridge includes The Atlantic Cancer
Research Institute. Housed at the Dr. Georges-L. Dumont Regional Hospital, ACRI is a
leading R&D center of excellence in Moncton, and one of its areas of expertise includes
bioinformatics tools and methods. Robert Goguen, Manager of Development and
Programmer Analyst for the Beaus?jour Regional Health Authority in Moncton, has kept the
hospital on the edge of technological innovation. His team of eight IT specialists is
completely funded by the Regional Health Authority. (Not every New Brunswick health
authority funds an IT team at every hospital).
Custom Software: It is not unusual for modern hospitals to sustain digital intranets to track
patients and their treatment. At Beaus?jour, Goguen has developed custom software
applications not only to manage patient records but to track results in clinical trials and
113
Report B
projects in specific areas like tele-nephrology and tele-oncology. Goguen?s IT team
developed these project-tracking applications in-house, and the team is willing to share
applications with the other regional health authorities (in the province and elsewhere).
Licensing the software to a wider market is also a possibility. Software development projects
arise continually, and Goguen says, ?It would great to partner with a software firm, especially
when we need to develop a large application. Locating in an incubator would raise our
exposure and help us find the right partners.?
Bio-Statistics: Apart from these patient record management functions, one emerging asset
at Beaus?jour is the proliferation of bio-statistics generated from various projects, research,
and clinical trials underway at the hospital. Goguen recognizes the vast potential for
extensive research against the data collection; he feels that data mining with .SQL Server
from Microsoft will be an important new direction for his team to pursue in coming years.
?There is not much current research being done against the data accumulated at my
hospital, but the potential is there,? says Goguen, who has spoken with NRC representatives
about the potential to fund expansion of data mining.
South-East Regional Health Authority, Moncton Hospital
Moncton?s largest employer, with 2700 employees and an annual budget of $180 million is
Moncton Hospital. Like the Dr. Georges-L. Dumont Regional Hospital, the Moncton Hospital
also has an undervalued asset in its IT department. Jacques Lirette, CIO, oversees an IT staff
of 44. ?For us, IT in the hospital setting is about shaking up the status quo, showing how we
can improve workflow to improve patient care, always with a focus on our patients.?
Medical and Health Informatics: Lirette sees huge potential growth for the hospital in IT-
driven medical and health informatics, or the storage, retrieval, and analysis of health-
specific data. For Lirette, the biggest issue for the department?s near-term horizon is
improving the use of data that is collected to increase patient safety and reduce errors.
?There is a huge amount of data flowing around our hospital. The problem is overcoming
clinical specialties within the hospital to better communicate patient treatment histories. So
much data exist in isolated silos and are not well integrated,? he says. Lirette?s team has
developed a reputation among OEM?s across Canada as a test bed to evaluate new
technologies, such as mobile communications, for doctors and hospital staff. ?We have been
testing prototypes for RIM, for instance, for completely novel medical applications,? Lirette
says. ?While we don?t publish our own results, the findings from OEM testing have appeared
in industry journals, and that is extremely gratifying to us.?
Incubation: The IT department is a big consumer of software, much of it custom made for
the hospital, and Lirette would like to see more local software vendors compete for contracts
at Moncton Hospital. ?In many cases,? he believes, ?local companies are neither aware of us
and our needs, nor are they experienced enough in the bidding process to win our contracts.
But if our IT department had a presence in a local incubator, we could meet regularly with
local and regional software developers, discuss our needs, and keep more of our purchasing
local. Revenue generation is not a big priority for the IT department, but licensing and
partnering with local companies through the incubator could be a big win for us and for the
Moncton IT community.? He envisions the hospital being a testing facility not just for the
RIMs of the technology world, but also for small local and regional companies to test
technology products through the IT department.
Lirette believes that securing an office in an incubator would also grant him more opportunity
to recruit talent for his department. Because the government-owned hospital?s wage scale is
114
Report B
less flexible than in the private sector, he finds it increasingly difficult to compete for
employees, as Moncton?s IT industry expands. ?Luckily, we can offer outstanding technology
and fascinating problems on which to work. My experience has been that employees working
for our department enjoy the added benefit of exposure to industry-specific knowledge and
expertise in healthcare. In effect, we turn IT people into healthcare specialists with IT
training,? says Lirette. He also says that NBCC-Moncton is a great provider of IT workers.
Lirette trains 8-10 NBCC IT students per year in an internship program run by Errol Persaud,
an NBCC instructor; typically he hires a few of those interns into permanent positions every
year, as well as a few from UNB, Universit? de Moncton, and Mount Allison University.
Health Research: Michelina Mancuso, manager of research services for the hospital,
believes that IT?s role in health and medical informatics is to harness health data for
research purposes. The recent increase in clinical trials, medical research, and contract
studies at the South-East Regional Health Authority raises the hospital?s profile as a research
center; like Goguen, she perceives the untapped potential in researching the abundant data
captured in patient and clinical trials. Mancuso recognizes that biomedical researchers in
Atlantic Canada require both clinical expertise and a ?real laboratory? to improve medical
devices during their research and development phases. Working with the hospital?s
Supervisor in Nuclear Medicine, Paul Colosimo, she recently identified an opportunity to
move imaging informatics forward. Moncton Hospital operates the only SPEC-CT machine in
Canada that has been in use for over one year, and she has paired the hospital?s
diagnosticians to work with nuclear engineers from UNB and industry, in order to research
the machine?s diagnostic and functional capabilities.
Mancuso?s largest need is for advice on intellectual property and commercialization. ?The
hospital doesn?t have the IP specialists to manage the tools, datasets, and clinical results
developed here. We need help to negotiate licenses and research contracts with large
private sponsors. Having a presence at an incubator with commercialization services could
help.? She stresses the connection to local economic development, ?The entire health field
across the province should perceive that medical informatics has the potential to generate
benefits for our hospitals while it sparks entrepreneurial activity in the community, as well.?
Action Plan
? Include space in the MTCC for Health and Bio-informatics organizations, events, and
activities.
? Encourage an initial meeting of interested parties in the Health and Bio-informatics area,
including:
o Dr. Rodney Ouellette, Atlantic Cancer Research Institute
o Jacques Lirette, CIO; South-East Regional Health Authority
o Michelina Mancuso, Manager of Research Services, South-East Regional
Health Authority
o Robert Goguen, Manager of Development and Programmer Analyst,
Beaus?jour Regional Health Authority.
? Promote Health and Bio-informatics and related commercial potential.
CASE STUDY: Atlantic Cancer Research Institute (ACRI) Case Study
Interview with Dr. Rodney Ouellette, Scientific Director and CEO, August 28, 2006
115
Report B
The largest cancer research institute in Atlantic Canada, ACRI, specializes in research
on breast cancer, leukemia, and lymphoma. The institute is a non-profit research
facility located in the Dr. Georges-L. Dumont Regional Hospital, and employs a total
of 30 employees, with 20 directly involved in research activities. Though the number
varies, there are also approximately 30 clinical trials underway at the Institute, where
cancer patients receive the benefits of cutting-edge cancer research.
Background
Formerly the Beaus?jour Medical Research Institute, the organization was re-branded
in June 2006 to better reflect its focus on cancer research and the regional impact of
its scientific activities. Since its founding in 1998, ACRI has attracted more than $12
million in grant funding for its programs and has an annual budget of $1.5 - $1.8
million, approximately two-thirds of which is grant dependent.
Assets and Challenges
Commercialization: Dr. Ouellette?s largest challenge is commercialization of his
research. Three years ago, granting agencies like ACOA and AIF encouraged ACRI to
?build capacity? for the region through its research. The ACRI team ramped up
clinical trials, revived a fertility clinic, and sought out contract work to supplement the
institute?s research programs. Today, as he applies for follow-on funding from the
same granting sources, the agencies are making renewed funding contingent on
commercialization activity. ?My biggest need is for help and advice on how to begin
the process of commercialization of our research,? says Dr. Ouellette. ?None of my
researchers has experience in commercialization, nor do I. We are investing in our
institute and professional resources for the longer term. And while I certainly
understand the need and potential for commercial applications from what we do ?
and believe there is a huge opportunity in our research ? I?ll need help from other
experts to begin commercializing our findings.?
As Atlantic Canada raises its technology profile in terms of attracting R&D funds and
increasing commercialization activity, Dr. Ouellette believes ACRI can be the ?tip of
the sword? in moving research forward in the biosciences. ?ACRI is nucleating
regional expertise in life science and biotechnology for the long term,? he says, ?and
commercialization will be part of the success story in the long run.?
University partners: ?We are not going to be able to build research hospitals in every
New Brunswick town,? Dr. Ouellette argues, ?so a reasonable strategy would be to
consolidate research efforts.? Toward this end, ACRI partners with Fredericton-based
the Cancer Populomix Institute in a ?virtual? collaboration that involves clinical, IT,
and research labs around Atlantic Canada. Beyond that effort, however, Dr. Ouellette
sees an opportunity for ACRI to study human disease by co-sponsoring faculty
positions at regional universities. ?By creating unique collaborative arrangements
with our university partners, mainly UNB, Mount Allison and Universit? de Moncton,
we could really leverage our resources by offering these faculty members and their
students lab space and research opportunities they might not have otherwise.? With
UNB?s nursing program already in Moncton, the blueprint is in place for collaboration.
Intellectual property: ACRI has accelerated protection of its Intellectual Property, with
one patent moving through the U.S. system, another patent application being
readied, and a license under negotiation. NRC is absorbing patenting costs on the
116
Report B
Institute?s behalf and is marketing the license for ACRI. But, by his own admission,
Dr. Ouellette could use assistance with IP issues. ?None of us at the Institute really
understands the intricacies of negotiating with private investors, nor should we.
That?s not our core competency,? he says. ?But if we could find help locally with
licensing, patent development, technology transfer, and commercialization, we could
take much better advantage of our research results.? If incubator space were
available to ACRI, he thinks, the Institute would be very willing to be an initial tenant,
to take advantage of business management expertise made available through the
incubator, and to work with other R&D tenants to pursue more opportunities.
Any future expansion of the Dr. Georges-L. Dumont Regional Hospital, where ACRI is
located, should expand integration of training and research functions. In addition,
Dr. Ouellette proposes that space be included in the renovation plans for business
development and incubation services. ?Few role models exist in Canada, so it has
been a difficult sell. But this is exactly the sort of activity the federal funding
agencies are emphasizing, and we should pursue it,? he says.
CASE STUDY: Spielo/GTECH
Interviews with Jon Manship, Founder; and Bob Rybak, Vice President, Technology
Jon Manship leveraged his experience as a video game repair technician at a local
arcade to found Spielo in Moncton in 1990. The company markets Video Lottery
machines to Atlantic Lottery Corporation, and by the end of 1992, the company had
earned $3 million after taxes. After additional product development, the company
enlarged its market across Canada, the U.S., and Europe, and opened a
manufacturing facility in Quebec. In April 2004, Spielo was acquired by Rhode
Island-based lottery and gaming company GTECH for $185 million USD. After the
merger, Manship left the company and formed Technology Venture Corporation a
private venture capital firm. GTECH, in turn, was acquired in August 2006 by Italian
lottery company Lottomatica S.p.A. for nearly $4.5 billion.
Background
In 1988 Jon Manship began technology development and organization of funds for
Spielo. In 1990 he was able to develop a prototype video lottery terminal and
establish the company. The start-up enjoyed support from a broad range of initial
investors: he started with just over $1 million from his own savings, the Atlantic
Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA), the National Research Council Industrial
Research Assistance Program (NRC-IRAP), local banks, and a small number of private
investors. Manship credits Spielo's initial success, in large part, to his ability to
access qualified people and use equipment and lab space at CADMI, the Provincial
Micro Electronic Research Center located on the Universit? de Moncton campus. ?I
would never have been able to develop the prototype without collaborating with
CADMI engineers,? says Manship. ?CADMI played such a vital role in Spielo's early
years. Being able to consult with engineers from CADMI, and to build and test
machines on their high-end hardware was crucial.? So important, in fact, that when
Spielo outgrew CADMI and brought its R&D function in-house, Manship took several
CADMI engineers with him.
Spielo began by marketing a video lottery machine system to Atlantic Lottery
Corporation. Legislation in the early 1990s opened the market and by 1992, Spielo
had generated $3 million after taxes. All of this revenue was reinvested into
117
Report B
research, to facilitate the additional product development that was necessary to
bring the product line to the U.S. market. In 1993 the company negotiated U.S.-
based investors in Minneapolis for a $2.4 million USD financing arrangement
(subordinated debt at 9 percent with a warrant kicker). These funds were used to
buy out the equity positions of the start-up investors, other than Manship.
As the company rapidly expanded in the late 1990s, it underwent bold structural
changes to better accomplish its goals. ?At 50-100 employees, the dynamic was
totally different than at 300 employees. We had to make big structural changes,?
says Manship. The company was reformulated so that each business line had a vice
president responsible for its profit and loss. ?The critical success factor that drove
the business was our goal to have the number one machine in every market we were
in. We wanted our machine to make more than any other machine in any market we
played in,? he says, and these organizational changes helped fulfill that mission.
Spielo's senior management team used textual business resources, as well as the
expertise of the large public accounting firms with offices in the region, to develop
and execute the business structure evolution.
In 2003, Spielo entered negotiations to sell the company to GTECH, a global lottery
and gaming company based in the U.S. GTECH acquired Spielo for $185 million USD
in April 2004 and has developed Spielo into GTECH's R&D division. GTECH, in turn,
was acquired in August 2006 by the Italian lottery company, Lottomatica.
Assets and Challenges
Manship reports that, after launching its first products, it was difficult for Spielo to
find the necessary start-up capital in Atlantic Canada. Though Spielo received
governmental support in the early product development phase, it was unable to find
the later-stage financing it needed in 1993 because the region seems to have a low
risk tolerance. ?We had to seek U.S.-based investors because Atlantic Canada lacks
an established 'angel' culture and struggles with low risk tolerance for start-ups,?
says Manship.
According to Bob Rybak, low wages in Moncton have enabled GTECH/Spielo to
manufacture at a lower cost than either competitors or other GTECH locations.
Production in Moncton can be executed at per unit costs just slightly above the costs
of producing in India (while the company avoids language, cultural, and physical
distance difficulties). As a result, production has migrated from the high-cost GTECH
facilities in Rhode Island and Austin, Texas, to Moncton. The trick, however, will be to
avoid the ?low-wage? snare, and to keep technology wages at a level high enough to
attract workers from other technology centers in Canada.
Attrition is low for GTECH employees in Moncton, which Rybak attributes, in part, to
the small size of the city. Since there are fewer large companies to offer employment
in Moncton, employees are motivated to work through minor difficulties, in order to
stay with the company.
The executive team, however, has found it difficult to fill necessary positions. As of
August 2006, Spielo/GTECH was unable to fill nearly 50 employment opportunities
with local talent, with particular difficulty in finding qualified senior staff management
and executive team positions. As a result, Rybak said that the company either hires
118
Report B
less experienced applicants, or relies on its extensive networks to recruit individuals
from outside the area.
Lessons Learned
Access to capital: Receiving ACOA and NRC-IRAP support were critical components
for the launch of Spielo. Access to other capital in the region, however, is difficult to
find. One way to raise ?risk tolerance? among regional investors may be to establish
local tax benefits or a loss provision that would refund a percentage of an
unsuccessful investment. Additionally, Moncton could provide matching funds for
certain investments in young companies, which would reduce risk for angels and
capital venture firms by reducing their investment per project.
Business incubation: Moncton would also benefit from a start-up incubation center
to provide young companies with inexpensive office space and technical resources.
?What is important is to have access to engineering staff and the best equipment at
cost,? says Manship. It is also pivotal to have access to university professors?
expertise when it is needed. An incubation center to centralize these resources, and
provide administrative staff and common business equipment, would help launch
entrepreneurship in the region.
Mentoring: The incubation center could also launch a strong business mentorship
program to bring together established entrepreneurs and young start-up executives
to help them solve common growth problems. A board of business leaders in the
community could be established as a resource for local start-ups in the incubation
center, for both mentoring and consulting.
Attracting senior managers: Spielo has had difficulty filling its upper level
management positions. Qualified Chief Financial Officers and Chief Operating
Officers in Atlantic Canada are hard to find; many people seem to be moving to larger
corporate centers in Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, and British Columbia. Moncton needs
to attract and retain qualified executives with business experience. It might be
beneficial to initiate an advertising campaign in major Canadian cities to highlight
Moncton?s low cost of living, high quality of life, and its targeted economic focus and
hi-tech potential.
International collaboration: Spielo/GTECH has enjoyed a close working relationship
with the GTECH's Rhode Island and Austin offices. The communication stream
among the facilities, particularly between Austin and Moncton, has been beneficial to
both parties. Rybak states, ??an infrastructure and management capability exists in
Austin that helps Moncton address those needs and allows Moncton to grow.? And,
while it is beneficial to have strong communication networks with growing technology
cities such as Austin, it should also be beneficial to develop a coalition with two to
three other cities similar to Moncton to share and develop growth ideas, contacts,
and experience.
Air links: It is also important to Moncton?s growth that more direct flights be
established between the city and the major business centers of the world.
Continental Airlines recently established a non-stop flight between Moncton and
Newark, and additional flights that link the region with both Canadian and American
cities would broaden the city's networking and business capacity. The city should
offer incentives to airlines to establish these flights.
119
Report B
Increased networking with convenient travel links to select cities around the world
may also be beneficial to recruiting experienced talent for Moncton companies.
Rybak has found that one method to fill his higher-level management positions has
been to use his company networks in other cities to locate people who were originally
from the region. These people can have a personal interest in returning to Atlantic
Canada and can bring a level of experience not easily attainable in Moncton. If
stronger networking links with other cities are established at a municipal level, it may
enable companies to recruit talent to relocate to Moncton.
University graduates: In the effort to locate qualified talent, Rybak also seeks out
applicants who have completed both an undergraduate degree and a year or two of
augmented technical training. These employees bring the company both a broad
general understanding and a specialty. Moncton should encourage and perhaps
subsidize a program to train university graduates in specialized IT skills.
Undergraduates at local universities should be informed of this possible career path
and the benefits they may enjoy as a result.
Skunkworks: In 2004, Spielo/GTECH opened an R&D lab, the Advanced Technology
Center, supported by NSERC and NRC. In the Center's formal R&D stream, 30-40
percent of the net funds spent are reimbursable by the government. Beyond this
stream, Spielo/GTECH developers have a catalog of 450 discrete ?pure research?
ideas with the goal to discover disruptive technologies, patentable concepts, and
other breakthroughs that ? while not specifically related to new product development
? will provide the firms with a competitive advantage. It would be advantageous for
Moncton to establish a subsidized research center, like a ?Skunkworks,? to fund a
portion of this work. ?One way to approach this would be to bring all of the
institutional sources of funding and support together at the table at one time, and all
of the companies that might benefit from this, into a consortium,? says Rybak.
Rather than companies individually seeking government funding for suitable projects,
a technology center could be established with government funds. Companies could
contribute financially and with in-kind contributions. Rybak believes this would
promote research cooperation between institutions and industry, and could lead to a
number of spin-off technologies and start-ups.
A LAND DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE
Clustering Digital Content Assets and R&D Commercialization Assistance
The City of Moncton, through a T1044 non-profit corporate organization (?NP?) may embark
on two parallel strategies for knowledge-based economic development by creating an
alliance with a private sector partner (?PP?). One strategy is to commercialize innovation
arising from the information and communication technology industrial sector (particularly
digital content including digital media, gaming, software programming, informatics and other
related niches). Tactics may be undertaken to operationally dedicate resources to an ICT
strategy. One prerequisite for a successful public-private alliance is shared commitment to a
common desired result: a vibrant, financially successful land development project to house
commercial and educational ICT activities, including commercialization services for
Moncton?s science and bioscience R&D centers.
Background
120
Report B
Moncton has an abundant skilled work force, ambitious entrepreneurs, and (if financing is
favorable) a population subset of buyers for commercial space attached to a land
development project ? executed in phases -- with the long-range goal of clustering ICT digital
content regional assets. A first phase of the land development project is to construct a
building to house an incubator with necessary office space; a second phase would consist of
a building to house an innovation center with the related office space; subsequent phases
would continue according to demand. (Other initiatives would provide additional resources,
including seed capital, angel investment, business skills training, etc.) The budget for a first
phase could total $5-10 million.
Deal Structure
Available financing alternatives will determine the structure of the initiative/s initiated, and
will ultimately determine the preliminary plans for this endeavor. There are at least four
financing alternatives for funding public infrastructure including a Bond Issue, a Public-
Private Partnership (?P3?), a CNRC-NRC Advanced Strategic Research Initiative, and, Brand
Monetization and Private Donations. Project funding could be arranged through a
combination of one or more alternatives:
1. Bond Issue -- The issuance of bonds for the purpose of funding public infrastructure is a
common municipal activity in Canada and elsewhere.97 Factors to consider include the
public appetite in Moncton for bond indebtedness, the City?s long term debt rating, and
the transaction costs involved in what could be a relatively small issue. The tax exempt
status of interest on municipal bonds could motivate wide subscription, given the broad
consensus the MTPG has cultivated among corporate and individual civic champions.
2. P3 -- The City of Moncton has previous successful P3 experience with the privatization of
its troubled water treatment plant in 1998. Although P3s can be controversial, Canadian
proponents point to the example of Moncton?s finance-design-build-operate type the City
undertook.98 A P3 design-build type could appeal to private sector candidates such as
Giffels Management, Ltd., that is currently developing a 60-acre site where the
Emmerson Business & Technology Park is located:99 a desirable target for a subject site.
However, the requirements for transparent competitive bidding among private sector
partners, and the preparation of an objective cost benefit analysis, argues against early
favoritism toward any particular PP candidate; consequently a formal request for
proposals or information should be preferred over open discussions with Giffels and
other companies. It is recommended to circulate a draft proposal for interested parties
to review. Policy restrictions and commercial feasibility would severely impact the P3
planning process.100 A City of Moncton representative could be appointed to serve on a
P3 committee, lead the Project Team, and serve on the Selection Panel and the
Negotiating Team. The IC? Institute could serve as an Outside Technical Advisor
throughout the process. The Moncton City Manager currently sits as a board member of
the Canadian Council for Public Private Partnerships, a non-profit formed for the purpose
of providing information about P3s.101
3. Provincial or Federal Grant - CNRC-NRC Advanced Strategic Research Initiative ? A
number of provincial and federal grant programs provide funds to develop infrastructure.
97 http://www.edmontonairports.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=13-67-240-242
98 http://www.publicintegrity.org/water/report.aspx?aid=58
99 http://www.giffels.com/emmersonparkuc.asp
100 http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/inpupr-bdpr.nsf/vwapj/guide-e.pdf/$FILE/guide-e.pdf
101 http://www.pppcouncil.ca/aboutUs_governance_bod.asp
121
Report B
One promising possibility was mentioned by the Director of NRC - IIT located in
Fredericton: NRC?s Advanced Strategic Research Initiatives Program is currently
exercising a preference for topics related to 3D, data mining, and gaming. The
application?s requirement for a commercial plan with a corporate and a government
partner could be satisfied by the proposed alliance.
4. Brand Monetization and Private Donations ? Naming rights to the incubator, innovation
center, the research park itself, and/or buildings within the park could serve to monetize
the project?s brand and afford private capital for leveraging against public funds. Public
sentiment in favor of naming rights has been demonstrated in Canadian metropolitan
areas.102 A number of Canadian companies offer consulting services on narrow topics
(i.e. permanent vs. fixed term) related to naming rights issues,103 and targeted marketing
campaigns can be self-managed.104
Finance
The NP could provide:
? Initial interim financing for building construction and site improvements held under
the ownership of the PP, without fixed term and secured with a first mortgage against
parcels at the site
? Public funds to underwrite permanent mortgage financing that would retire interim
debt as buildings and/or individual units of ownership are sold
Sales activity will restore liquidity as real estate is removed from the balance sheet of the PP.
As the City?s bond indebtedness is retired, partners can be positioned to undertake further
development: new buildings could be planned, designed, and constructed in accordance with
the master planned concept and market demand.
Marketing
Buildings could be developed and sold in units of office condominium ownership rather than
leasing to tenants. The shells of buildings, common areas, equipment, instrumentation,
fixtures and other elements of the project can be owned in common by unit buyers as is
normally the case with condominium projects, and costs associated with common elements
can be shared by unit owners. Precedent exists in Canada for public funding of residential
condominium development.105
At the discretion of the NP, a combination of covenants can establish deed restrictions to
ensure that the development and the use of the land comports with the common desired
result of the alliance. A master planning process could predetermine appropriate covenants
for the project?s land use, zoning, architectural controls, leasing restrictions and more.
Covenants will ensure that both building construction and site development facilitates
synergy among the owners of the units, raising the reasonable expectations for a reliable
outcome for both the NP and potential buyers. A subcommittee of directors (appointed by
the NP?s governing board) could oversee ongoing administration and enforcement of
covenants.
102 http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/commsvcs/oca/naming/policy.htm
http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/commsvcs/oca/naming/pdf/execsummaryofinputs.pdf
103 http://www.theoffordgroup.com/service.html#V http://www.give-canada.ca/
104 http://media.eventbooking.com/27429_06.pdf#search=%22canada%20naming%20rights%20%22
105 http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/corp/nero/nere/2004/2004-11-08-0900.cfm
122
Report B
If marketed optimally, units can be pre-sold, and thereby reduce financial exposure for the
partners. The City would benefit from an aggressive marketing campaign that brings
publicity for its ingenuity in fulfilling its public mission. A major key to the clustering of ICT
and R&D resources in Moncton is public involvement.
Benefits, Motivation and Rewards
The aggregation of Moncton?s ICT and R&D industries should increase the effectiveness of
both toward the common goal of regional economic development. The PP would benefit both
financially and from positive publicity and public relations. Condominium unit sales can be
motivated by the prospect for buyers to build equity in real property vs. expensing rent ? as
well as attaining an environment with enhanced commercial, educational, and creative
synergies. A land developer with an appropriate site could be motivated to join the alliance
in order to liquidate property equity in a manner that limits financial risk, through the PP.
CASE STUDY: Moncton Flight College
Interview with Craig Prosser, MFC Business Manager; Holly McKnight, MFC Board Member
The renown Moncton Flight College (MFC), located at Moncton International Airport,
is a center of excellence with a regional, national, and international impact. The
partnership between MFC and NBCC-Moncton's IT department, through the two-year
Diploma in Aviation Technology program, is just one reason MFC plays an important
role in technology development in the community.
Background
MFC, a non-profit organization, has been serving the Maritimes since 1929. It was
originally established as the Moncton Aero Club and became the Moncton Flight
College in 1997 when it introduced its joint diploma program with NBCC-Moncton.
The school has trained 15,000 pilots over its 77 years of existence and currently
graduates approximately 120 pilots per year. The college received the 2005 Award
for Business Excellence presented at the Dieppe Entrepreneur?s Award Banquet.
MFC attracts students from all over the world because of its individualized curriculum
and low student-to-teacher ratio (6:1). Close supervision ensures an extremely high
graduation rate. The Air Transport Association of Canada projects a 4.8 percent
annual increase in the number of pilots needed in Canada, and applications to MFC
programs are up across the board.
The school offers four programs; the most popular is a two-year Diploma in Aviation
Technology program. This program attracts young high school graduates to pursue
coursework both at NBCC and MFC so they can receive pilot accreditation and begin
accumulating the necessary flight hours to become commercial pilots. The Diploma
program typically attracts 20-24 students per year, but applications jumped to 41 in
fall 2006. The related program offered by NBCC-Moncton, in Avionics-Aircraft
Technology, has a 100 percent placement rate for its graduates. CCNB-Dieppe
delivers an Aircraft Mechanic program, as well.
MFC enjoys a wide global reach. In 2003, the college began working with Saint John-
based CANLink Global in order to pursue an opportunity to train Chinese pilots in
Moncton. In 2005, MFC signed a groundbreaking $60 million contract to begin a
pilot training program with the Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronauts in
2006. Over a five-year period, MFC expects to train 120 Chinese pilots per year. The
123
Report B
demand for pilot training in China is huge: China has six times the population of the
U.S., but has only one twentieth the number of pilots. Nationally, China needs 1200
new pilots per year and 15,000 by 2015, and Chinese universities do not have the
facilities or capacity to meet this growing need. ?They are actually building airports in
China before they have the aircraft and pilots,? says Craig Prosser, MFC Business
Manager. MFC competed for this contract with flight training schools from Vancouver
and Montreal and won after representatives from the Civil Aviation Authority of China
visited and audited the MFC program. ?Our winning bid is a strong indicator of the
high level of quality that MFC delivers,? says MFC Board member and NBCC-Moncton
IT Department Head Holly McKnight. The first 30 Chinese students arrived in July
2006 to begin the new program. Building on the Chinese connection, MFC plans to
expand into other international markets. Says McKnight, ?India is our next target
market. India is following the same growth pattern for pilot demand that we see in
China, about five years behind China.?
Assets and Challenges
MFC is a tenant at Moncton International Airport and as they enlarge their services,
they will attract increasing aviation activity for the airport. Historically, Moncton has
been the commercial hub of the Maritimes, and while the city?s rail freight has
declined, its truck and air traffic is expanding. Continental Airlines added direct
flights from Newark, New Jersey, to Moncton in May 2006; Federal Express and UPS
are expanding their Moncton operations every year. As commercial aviation traffic
continues to grow, Moncton?s importance as a regional air hub will also increase.
In spite of cold winters, Moncton?s weather is surprisingly accommodating for
aviation. Moncton experiences fewer days of fog than other airports in New
Brunswick and is more centrally located than airports on Prince Edwards Island, Nova
Scotia, or Newfoundland. Certainly, the weather in Moncton is a great asset
compared to unfavorable training and flying conditions in Beijing and other Chinese
cities, where smog is heavy and growing worse.
Lessons Learned
International connections and collaboration. MFC?s success is due to the strong
relationships it has built with organizations in New Brunswick and abroad.
Partnership with NBCC-Moncton adds educational value to the core aviation training
program, while international training contracts like the one with China contribute to
MFC's reputation as a center of excellence. MFC's global brand is well-known and
should expand as its international reach increases. It may also be valuable for the
city to offer more English as a Second Language (ESL) training as larger numbers of
non-native English speakers come to the region. Such a program could also increase
international immigration to Moncton and enrich the Moncton economy.
Expansion. Other airports in the region appear to be underutilized, and in future MFC
might expand its brand and programs to other regional airports in the form of
satellite operations.
124
Report B
125
Report B
C ONCLUS I O N
THE OPPORTUNITY AT HAND
Building a global brand as a technology hub is not principally about marketing Moncton,
although marketing activities will publicize the region?s assets, commercial opportunities,
and achievements. More importantly, branding Moncton requires progress toward select
strategic actions such as:
? Focusing investment, organization, and wealth creation around Moncton?s existing
clusters in ICT and the bioscience and thin films sectors by launching the Moncton
Technology and Commercialization Center (MTCC).
? Making Moncton a supportive location for technology entrepreneurs by organizing
angel investors, venture capitalists, and government funding agencies around the
need to fund more start-up companies.
? Improving post-secondary educational attainment rates, particularly among
Anglophones, and expanding post-secondary ICT offerings through area institutions
and collaboration.
? Actively pursuing international private and municipal partnerships with established
technology centers, such as Austin, Texas and Oulu, Finland.
? Promoting a common vision for Moncton?s technology development and by pursuing
niche opportunities like bioinformatics and a ?Creative Learning Institute in Digital
Media.?
Accordingly, this report presents strategies to enhance two key principle assets: the ICT
sector represented by numerous regional-based companies, and emerging research and
development activities based in Moncton?s two hospitals at the Universit? de Moncton, and
at Mount Allison University. Both represent key local strengths around which Moncton can
build a national and international brand as a technology center of excellence.
Branding Moncton as a technology center of excellence and the ?hub city? of Atlantic Canada
for entrepreneurship and innovation also addresses larger demographic issues facing both
the city and the province. In post-secondary education institutions across New Brunswick,
enrollment is slipping in the face of overall population declines and the lure of jobs in rapidly
growing parts of Western Canada and other locations. And even though Moncton itself is
growing, data collected from the survey of Moncton college and university graduates and
from interviews with young local entrepreneurs indicates that Moncton must do more to
attract and retain young talent. Infrastructure improvements including the recommended
?Creative Learning Institute in Digital Media,? and the Moncton Technology
Commercialization Center will augment existing and important programs like ?Geeks on Ice?
and the ?Cyber Socials.?
This report emphasizes five key objectives for accelerating technology-based growth in
Greater Moncton.
OBJECTIVE 1. Accelerate technology-based business development in established and
emerging industry clusters with the greatest growth potential. Moncton has two clear asset
areas in its growing knowledge-based economy: organically launched ICT companies and
R&D activity represented by centers of excellence like the Atlantic Cancer Research Institute.
Within this context, Moncton?s knowledge-based innovation economy is currently developing
126
Report B
along two paths. The first path is innovative, in which start-up companies, mostly in the ICT
sector and outside the R&D centers, arise spontaneously from entrepreneurial initiatives.
The second path for increasing knowledge-based entrepreneurship in Moncton involves
commercialization of R&D coming out of research centers in the region, much of which is in
the bioscience disciplines. Developing companies and creating wealth along both these
paths will involve strategies that are both distinct and overlapping; the Innovation Paradigm
and the R&D Paradigm.
OBJECTIVE 2. Develop Greater Moncton as an emerging center of technology-based
entrepreneurship. Local investors can help to secure the larger vision at hand as they focus
investments in targeted areas of development. It typically takes a focused regional effort to
help investors understand emerging industry sectors when they have an established pattern
of investment in more traditional ventures. It is important to celebrate local entrepreneurs
and increase their profile in local events and media as positive role models. Broad
awareness of entrepreneurial patterns of success (and common concerns) helps to secure a
grassroots level of support for change.
OBJECTIVE 3. Foster academic and research excellence that is specifically linked to regional
economic development. Engaging young students with a vision for technology development
and entrepreneurship is important, as is targeting education to promote the skills needed in
technology-based jobs.
OBJECTIVE 4. Foster and leverage regional, national, and global value-added partnerships
and alliances. Networks and information sharing in an inclusive and open society is needed
to enable regional economic acceleration. Multiple avenues for communication for cross-
disciplinary interaction need to function at several levels: person-to-person, group-to-group,
company-to-company, college-to-college, industry-to-industry, city-to-city, etc. These can be
given local prominence through workshops, conferences, and appropriate media coverage.
OBJECTIVE 5. Promote a common vision and coordinated action initiatives targeted to brand
Greater Moncton as an important emerging center of technology-based entrepreneurship
and business development. Government, and business, and academic champions need to
collaborate in order to determine the most meaningful actions to create widespread
synergies to coordinate change. While collaboration does not require complete agreement
from every party on every issue, it does require broad regional commitment to the larger
objectives as well as support for targeted actions. Institution-based excellence ? whether it
be academic, business, or government ? is not sufficient. Rather a wider view is required in
which individuals and institutions actively support the larger community?s potential. When
this wider view is grasped in both public and private effort, regional assets can be leveraged
against regional challenges.
Moncton?s opportunity to build on its ICT and R&D assets is real. With targeted funds,
organized effort, meaningful international partnerships, and a renewed emphasis on
reinforcing a culture of entrepreneurship and innovation, Moncton can enhance its growing
reputation as a bilingual technology center of excellence.
127
Report B
APPENDICES
A. SURVEY OF GRADUATE STUDENTS RESULTS, ANALYSIS, ETC.
B. SURVEY INSTRUMENT
C. OPEN RESPONSES TO SURVEY
D. TIMELINE COMPANIES
E. BENCHMARKING CITY COMPARISONS
F. THE RESEARCH TEAM
G. INTERVIEWS
H. BIBLIOGRPAHY
128
Report B
APPENDIX A. 2006 SURVEY ANALYSIS, MONCTON REGION GRADUATE STUDENTS
To gain a better understanding of the career plans, attitudes, and work perspectives on
Moncton of recent college and university graduates from area schools, a web-based survey
was conducted via a commercial service (SurveyMonkey.com).
The results of the survey indicate that a significant proportion (over 40 percent) of students
are planning to stay in Moncton to work after they graduate. The students who are planning
to leave cited numerous factors affecting their decision, including better job opportunities
and higher wages in other places. Students generally value the quality of living in Moncton,
and some stay to be close to their family. There were numerous complaints indicating that
the jobs available in Moncton were inadequate and paid wages that were too low. Most
students leaving the city would require a salary between $35,000 and $65,000 to stay.
Survey Sample
The names and email addresses of 2006 graduates were requested from two local
universities, Mount Allison University and Universit? de Moncton, and from the two
community colleges, NBCC-Moncton and CCNB-Dieppe. Mount Allison, NBCC-Moncton, and
CCNB-Dieppe were able to provide the names and email addresses of combined 372
students.106 Of these, 73 email addresses were invalid, leaving 299 students to contact. A
total of 100 of these students responded to all or part of the survey, yielding a 33.4 percent
response rate. See the chart below for detailed statistics, by school.
Table A.1: Survey Response Rate
NBCC Mount Allison CCNB Total
2006 Graduates 393 430 192 1015
Data Provided 161 142 69 372
Invalid Emails (19) (35) (19) (73)
Total Contacted 142 107 50 299
Respondents 44 35 21 100
Response Rate 31% 33% 42% 33%
To determine if this sample is representative of the population of Moncton graduates, survey
respondents were compared with college and university graduate data provided by the
schools using statistics on gender, age, and region of origin. Overall, the survey population
was very similar to the population of 2006 graduating students and NBCC-Moncton, CCNB-
Dieppe, and Mount Allison.
The gender breakdown of students in the survey sample is almost precisely that of the
population of graduating students surveyed, Figure A.1. Likewise, the survey respondents
were of similar ages as all the 2006 graduates of the three universities surveyed, Figure A.2.
106Universit? de Moncton was unable to provide the names and e-mail addresses of its 2006 graduates for
technical reasons.
129
Report B
Figure A.1. Gender Breakdown of Surveyed Students
Gender
54%
45%46%
55%
40%
42%
44%
46%
48%
50%
52%
54%
56%
Females Males
Population
Survey
Figure A.2. Age Breakdown of Surveyed Students
Age
6% 5%9% 5%
85%
3%1%
80%
2% 5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
50 and over 40-50 30-40 20-30 under 20
Population
Survey
The largest discrepancy between the survey sample and 2006 Moncton graduates is the
region of origin, Figure A.3. The survey results are fairly similar to that of the population of
graduates, but there is a larger percentage of students from New Brunswick and fewer
representatives from Nova Scotia. While it is possible that this difference may skew survey
results, any deviation is likely insignificant.
130
Report B
Figure A.3. Province of Origin of Surveyed Students
Province of Origin
3%2%2%
6%
16%
71%
2%1%
85%
4%6% 4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
AB BC NB NS ON PE QC Other
Population
Survey
Survey Methods
The survey was designed by the IC? Institute?s Moncton Research Team and approved by all
university representatives, including the University of Texas at Austin?s Internal Review
Board.107 An email sent to all addresses by the team explained the project and the survey
and asked students to follow a link to the SurveyMonkey site.108 Links were individualized so
it was possible to track whether or not a particular student had responded. Survey questions
were available in both English and French and all students were required to consent to the
terms of the survey before proceeding. After two weeks or more had passed, if a student had
not completed the survey, another email was sent reminding them of the project and again
asking for their participation. Survey results were analyzed for outliers and abnormalities
and none were found.
KEY SURVEY FINDINGS
Following is an analysis of the primary findings from the survey results.
?What was your major or primary field of study?? The largest proportion of students (27
percent) majored in a business-related major, followed by engineering technologies (9
percent), psychology (9 percent), and computer and information systems (8 percent), Figure
A.4.
107 The full text of the survey is included in Appendix A.
108 The text of all email communications is included in Appendix B.
131
Report B
Figure A.4. Primary Fields of Study
What was your major or primary field of study?
(N=77)
0%0%0%
4%4%
27%
8%
0%
1%
9%
1%
0%0%
4%
1%
0%
4%
0%
3%
4%
0%0%0%0%
3%
1%
3%
1%
9%
0%0%0%
5%
0%
1%
5%
1%
0%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
Ag
ric
ul
tur
e
Ar
ch
ite
ctu
re
/Pl
an
nin
g
Ar
ea
Stu
die
s
Ar
ts
Bi
olo
gic
al
Sc
ien
ce
s
Bu
sin
ess
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
n
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
n T
ec
hn
olo
gy
Co
mp
ute
r/I
nfo
rm
ati
on
Sc
ien
ce
s
Co
ns
tru
cti
on
Tr
ad
es
Ed
uc
ati
on
En
gin
ee
rin
g
En
gin
ee
rin
g T
ec
hn
olo
gie
s
En
gli
sh
La
ng
ua
ge
an
d L
ite
rat
ure
Fa
mi
ly
an
d C
on
su
me
r S
cie
nc
es
He
alt
h P
ro
fes
sio
ns
Hi
sto
ry
La
ng
ua
ge
s
Le
ga
l S
tud
ies
Li
be
ral
A
rts
an
d S
cie
nc
es
Li
bra
ry
Sc
ien
ce
M
ath
an
d S
tat
ist
ics
M
ec
ha
nic
an
d R
ep
air
T
ech
no
log
ies
M
ilit
ary
M
ult
i/I
nte
rd
isc
ipl
ina
ry
Stu
die
s
Na
tur
al
Re
so
ur
ce
s a
nd
C
on
ser
va
tio
n
Re
cr
ea
tio
n a
nd
Fi
tne
ss
Pe
rso
na
l a
nd
C
uli
na
ry
Se
rvi
ce
s
Ph
ilo
so
ph
y a
nd
R
eli
gio
n
Ph
ys
ica
l S
cie
nc
es
Pr
ec
isi
on
Pr
od
uc
tio
n T
rad
es
Ps
yc
ho
log
y
Pu
bli
c A
dm
in/
So
cia
l S
erv
ice
s
Sc
ien
ce
T
ech
no
log
ies
Se
cu
rit
y a
nd
P
rot
ec
tiv
e S
erv
ice
s
So
cia
l S
cie
nc
es
Th
eo
log
ica
l S
tud
ies
Tr
an
sp
ort
ati
on
/M
ate
ria
ls
M
ov
ing
Major
P
er
ce
nt
ag
e
of
R
es
po
nd
en
ts
?Professionally what are you planning to do immediately after graduation?? The largest
portion of respondents (43 percent) are planning to stay in Moncton to work after graduation,
while 27 percent are planning to leave Moncton to work, and 19 percent will attend graduate
school, Figure A.5. Other plans included: returning to hometown; continuing with education
in some form; and completing an internship abroad.109
Figure A.5. Professional Post-graduate Plans
Professionally what are you planning to do immediately after graduation?
(N=84)
27%
11%
43%
19%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
Attend graduate
school
Stay in Moncton to
work
Leave Moncton to
work
Other
Post-Graduation Plans
P
er
ce
nt
ag
e
of
R
es
po
nd
en
ts
109 Complete list of responses to open-ended questions can be found in Appendix C.
132
Report B
?Why or why not are you planning to stay/not stay in Moncton?? Reasons for staying
included:
? Job in the city;
? City is growing;
? Grew up in Moncton; and
? Access to needed facilities and community for involvement in the arts.
Reasons for not staying included:
? Lack of career opportunities;
? Desire to be close to family and/or return to hometown; and
? Not enough room for career expansion in Moncton.110
Students were asked to provide the name of the organization for which they were working if
they were planning to stay in Moncton to work. The following organizations were listed by
students.
? UPS Moncton (2)
? Air Canada
? Armour
? School District II
? Mount Allison University
? RBC
? Student?s own company
? The Travel Store
? Sounds Fantastic
? Atlantic Wholesalers, Ltd.
? Jacques Whitford
? Manpower
? Wildwood Cabinets
? Fairmont Hotels and Resorts
? Exxon
? Downeast Plastics, Inc.
? OAO Technology Solutions, Inc.
? AOL
Students were asked, ?If you are remaining in Moncton to work, how important is each of the
following factors in your decision to stay?? The largest percentage of students (64 percent)
thought quality of life issues were ?Very Important.? The three issues that the most students
thought were either ?Very Important? or ?Somewhat Important? were quality of life (90
percent), friends in Moncton (85 percent), and family related issues (82 percent). The
largest percentage of students thought that high paying jobs and the local/regional economy
were ?Somewhat Unimportant? or ?Not Important? (25 percent and 23 percent, respectively),
Figure A.6.
110 The full list of open ended responses is included in Appendix C.
133
Report B
If you are NOT going to stay in Moncton to work how important is each of the
following factors in your decision to leave?
(N=29)
24% 24%
10%
41% 41%
38%
28%
24%
14% 14%
48%
31%
28%
10% 10%
14%
21%
24%
10%
41%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Fa
mi
ly-
rel
ate
d i
ssu
es
Lo
ca
l/R
eg
ion
al
Ec
on
om
y
No
t e
no
ug
h h
ig
h-
pa
yin
g j
ob
s
Po
or
er
Q
ua
lit
y o
f L
ivi
ng
Ac
ce
ss
to
H
ea
lth
Fa
cil
iti
es
Factors
P
er
ce
nt
ag
e
R
es
po
nd
en
ts
Very
Important
Somewhat
Important
Somewhat
Unimportant
Not Important
Figure A.6. Ranking Reasons to Stay in Moncton
If you are remaining in Moncton to work how important is each of the following factors in your
decision to stay?
(N=39)
51% 49%
36%
64%
33%
51%
46%
26%
36%
31%
44%
23%
13%8%
5%
15%15%13%
8%5%10%
8% 5%5%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
Fa
mi
ly-
rel
ate
d i
ss
ue
s
Lo
ca
l/R
eg
ion
al
Ec
on
om
y
Hi
gh
P
ay
ing
Jo
bs
Qu
ali
ty
of
L
ife
Fr
ien
ds
in
M
on
cto
n
He
alt
hc
are
Factor
P
er
ce
nt
ag
e
of
R
es
po
nd
en
ts
Very
Important
Somewhat
Important
Somewhat
Unimportant
Not Important
Students were also asked, ?If you are NOT going to stay in Moncton to work how important is
each of the following factors in your decision to leave?? The largest percentage of
responding students (48 percent) indicated that not having enough high-paying jobs in
Moncton was ?Very Important? to their decision to leave. The factors that the largest
percentage of students considered ?Very Important? or ?Somewhat Important? included not
enough high paying jobs (76 percent), a relatively stagnant local economy (66 percent), and
family related issues (66 percent). The issues that largest percentage of students thought
were ?Somewhat Unimportant? or ?Not Important? included access to healthcare facilities
(55 percent), and a relatively poorer quality of life in Moncton (52 percent).
Figure A.7. Ranking Reasons to Leave Moncton
134
Report B
Students were asked, ?If you are NOT going to stay in Moncton after graduation what income
level would it take in a job in Moncton to persuade you to stay and work here?? The majority
of students (52 percent) would require a salary between $45,000 and $65,000 CN to stay in
Moncton. A significant proportion of students (91 percent) would require less than $65,000
to stay in Moncton, Figure A.8.
Figure A.8. Salary Required to Stay in Moncton
Salary Required to Stay in Moncton
(N=23)
0%
17%
22%
26% 26%
0% 0%
9%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
$15,000 -
$24,999
$25,000 -
$34,999
$35,000 -
$44,999
$45,000 -
$54,999
$55,000 -
$64,999
$65,000 -
$74,999
$75,000 -
$84,999
$85,000+
Salary Requirement
P
er
ce
nt
ag
e
of
R
es
po
nd
en
ts
Students were asked, ?If you are moving from Moncton, to what city will you be moving to
work or look for work?? Though responses varied significantly, the most common response
to this question was Halifax with 7 responses, followed by Fredericton with 4, and Toronto
(3). Other cities listed included Bathurst (2), Calgary (2), Aldouane, Edmonton, Montreal, Fort
McMurray, Hamilton, Ottawa, Quebec, Vancouver, and Oita City, Japan. The full list of
responses can be found in Appendix C.
Students were asked, ?Why are you moving there?? A number of responses included:
? For a change really. I've lived in Moncton my whole life. I want new exciting adventures.
? I moved to Ottawa following graduation to attend graduate school at Carleton University.
Once I have received my MA in Experimental Psychology, I will probably not move back to
Moncton because there are no jobs there that are in my area of expertise. There are
more job opportunities in Ottawa. Also, attending grad school in Ottawa, I will have
made connections that I will not have in Moncton.
? I am actually already living in Calgary, for the reason that there is no work in NB. I was
offered a job here before even living here. And the money is really good!
? I found a job in Fredericton immediately following graduation. The job offered good pay,
good benefits, and job security.
? Better work opportunities. Even if the cost of living is slightly higher, my income potential
compensates for it. There is also an efficient public transit system in Toronto, which is
135
Report B
important to me -- I will not require a vehicle in order to go to work which saves a
significant amount of money (not to mention better for the environment). I also have
family in Toronto.
? To attend school and to work.
? Better pay; More opportunities in my field; More culture (restaurants, arts,
entertainment, theatre); Bilingualism not an issue.
? Hired by a major engineering firm.
? It's hard to stay in the same city you grew up in, especially if you haven't done much
traveling. I'd like to get out and see the rest of Canada before I settle down.
? More culture, music, entertainment, etc.
Students were asked, ?Did you work when attending college or university?? Responses
varied by university, but overall, the majority of students (56 percent) did not work while they
were attending college. Mount Allison was the only university at which the majority (53
percent) of students worked while attending school, Figure A.9.
Figure A.9. Did You Work When Attending College or University?
Did you work when attending college or university?
(N=70)
44%
56%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Yes No
Response
P
er
ce
nt
ag
e
of
R
es
po
nd
en
ts
Students were asked, ?Did you have an internship (part-time) or a summer job with a
Moncton-based employer during your degree plan?? The majority of students (55 percent)
had an internship with a Moncton-based employer while they were in school, Figure A.10.
136
Report B
Figure A.10. Internship or Job in Moncton?
Did you have an internship (part-time) or a summer job with a Moncton-
based employer during your degree plan?
(N=71)
45%
55%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
Yes No
Response
P
er
ce
nt
ag
e
of
R
es
po
nd
en
ts
Students with internships were asked to indicate whether the position paid or unpaid. The
majority (68 percent) had paid internships, Figure A.11.
Figure A.11. Status of Internship: Paid or Unpaid
Status of Internship
(N=41)
32%
68%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
Paid Unpaid
Response
P
er
ce
nt
ag
e
of
R
es
po
nd
en
ts
Students were asked, ?What could Moncton do to help you make a decision to work and live
in Moncton?? A sample of responses is included below. The full list of responses can be
found in Appendix C.
? More higher paying jobs. Equal opportunity for both French and English speaking
citizens. A place of employment should have the same number of English speaking
employees as they do French speaking. Bilingualism eliminates a lot of valuable
137
Report B
employees both French and English speaking. As long as a company can service the
public in both languages, bilingualism is unnecessary.
? Moncton can't do much itself. If the province paid teachers more, I'd stay in New
Brunswick for sure.
? Work with landlords to have more affordable housing.
? Increase wages.
? Organize business conferences for recent graduates. Maintain high degree of bilingual
services, as well as good relations with neighboring Dieppe and Riverview. Continue to
open the economy (i.e. international flights, diversified sectors, etc).
? More recruiting from companies in science based business.
? Ensure that those coming out into the IT filed have well paying jobs.
? A more vibrant arts community.
Students were asked, ?In which field are you currently working or seeking employment?? The
largest percentage of students (20 percent) are currently seeking careers in business and
finance. Other popular fields include social sciences (9 percent), construction (8 percent),
education (6 percent), and information technology (6 percent), figure A.12.
Figure A.12. Employment Fields
In which field are you currently working or seeking employment?
(N=65)
0%
5%
2%
20%
5%
8%
0% 0% 0%
3%
0%
6%
3% 3% 3% 3%
5%
2%
3%
0%
8%
3%
9%
2%
0%
3%
0%
6%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
Ag
ric
ult
ure
Ar
ch
ite
ctu
re
Ar
ts
Bu
sin
ess
an
d F
ina
nc
e
Co
mm
un
ity
an
d S
oc
ial
Se
rvi
ces
Co
ns
tru
cti
on
Ed
uc
ati
on
En
vir
on
me
nt
Gr
ap
hic
D
esi
gn
He
alt
h C
are
Su
pp
ort
He
alt
h D
iag
no
sis
an
d T
rea
tm
en
t
He
alt
h T
ech
no
log
y
Inf
orm
ati
on
Te
ch
no
log
y
Ins
tal
lat
ion
an
d R
ep
air
La
w
an
d G
ov
ern
me
nt
M
an
ag
em
en
t
M
ed
ia
an
d C
om
mu
nic
ati
on
s
Of
fic
e a
nd
A
dm
ini
str
ati
ve
Su
pp
ort
Pe
rso
na
l c
are
an
d C
uli
na
ry
Se
rvi
ce
s
Pr
od
uc
tio
n
Pr
ote
cti
ve
Se
rvi
ce
s
Sa
les
Sc
ien
ce
So
cia
l S
cie
nc
e
So
ftw
are
D
ev
elo
pm
en
t
Sp
ort
s a
nd
Fi
tne
ss
Tr
an
spo
rta
tio
n
Vi
de
o G
am
e D
ev
elo
pm
en
t
Field
P
er
ce
nt
ag
e
of
R
es
po
nd
en
ts
138
Report B
Students were asked, ?What do/did you enjoy most about living in Moncton?? Selected
responses are included below. The full list can be found in Appendix C.
? Awesome people, diverse culture (i.e. Anglophone and Acadians), everything else is
within a short distance (i.e. Parlee Beach, PEI, Halifax, Saint John). Moncton really is the
hub of the Maritimes.
? Family, clean city, maritimes.
? Centrality of services, family and friends, friendliness of the general populace.
? Close proximity of goods and services. Smaller size in terms of metropolitan.
? It?s a small city, but at the same time we have all the conveniences very close by.
? Just being home with family. People were pretty nice. And it's easy to get around cause
it's not a huge city, but it's big enough for what you need.
? A lot of things to do, great night life, easy to get around town (buses).
? Being close to everything - I live outside of the city limits but it is easy to access
Moncton's center.
? Ability to volunteer at several places. Cheap rent. Areas are relatively close together,
within biking distance
? Plenty to do and close to beaches.
? Being close to the bars and stores.
? The atmosphere, friendly people, close to everything.
? Close to everything that I needed while at school.
? I have never lived in Moncton although I work there full time right now. I really enjoy
working there however I commute from Sackville every day and I do not enjoy the drive.
? Low crime rate, clean environment, friendly neighbors and relatively happy and low
stress attitude of many citizens.
? Students were also asked, ?What do/did you least enjoy about living in Moncton??
Results varied significantly. Selected responses are included below and the full list can
be found in Appendix C.
? Downtown is too small. Other cities the size of Moncton (such as Fredericton) have a
more bustling downtown life. Moncton has one older street (Main Street) and it lacks
character.
? Low wages.
139
Report B
Number of Years in Moncton
(N=65)
8%
9%
37%
15%
31%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Less than 1 year 1 - 5 years 5 - 10 year 10 - 20 years More than 20
years
Number of Years
P
er
ce
nt
ag
e
of
R
es
po
nd
en
ts
? Few special events of interest, lack of vibrancy in the downtown, lack of some specialty
shops and services.
? The struggling downtown section. Moncton officials should reduce the focus on mini-
malls and suburb expansion, and focus instead on attracting quality jobs (services,
manufacturing - something other than retail), as well as build up (with high rises). At
present, Moncton is expanding too much geographically, and taking over important
countryside land.
? Pollution. (Hard time sleeping in Moncton.
? High Cost in rent that makes it hard on students.
? A lot of jobs, but no decent wages.
? Poorly planned city - requires a personal vehicle to really live in the city. No defined
downtown business area, instead businesses are spread across a large area.
? No pro sports team, and lack of concerts.
? Lack of culture. Lack of tolerance from the French community for non-French speaking
individuals
? Not diverse enough for me.
? Lack of jobs in my field.
Students were asked to indicate how many years they had lived in Moncton. The largest
percentage of respondents (37 percent) have been in Moncton for more than 20 years and
over half (52 percent) have been in the city for more than 10 years, Figure A.13.
Figure A.13. Years Lived in Moncton
140
Report B
Students were asked, ?Did you have financial aid while you attended college?? The majority
(64 percent) indicated that they did, though results varied by university, Figure A.14.
Figure A.14. Financial Aid for College
Did you have financial aid while attending college?
(N=66)
64%
36%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Yes No
Response
P
er
ce
nt
ag
e
of
R
es
po
nd
en
ts
Students were asked, ?Would you have benefited from more career counseling and/or job
placement assistance at your college or university?? The majority (57 percent) indicated that
they would have benefited from additional career counseling while they were in school,
Figure A.15.
Figure A.15. Career Placement Interest
Would you have benefited from more career counseling and/or job placement
assistance at your college or university?
(N=67)
43%
57%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
Yes No
Response
P
er
ce
nt
ag
e
of
R
es
po
nd
en
ts
141
Report B
APPENDIX B. SURVEY INSTRUMENT
English
Page 1
In what language would you prefer to take the survey?
Dans quelle langue pr?f?reriez-vous pour prendre l'?tude?111
English
Fran?ais
Page 2
Thank you for participating in this survey of recent university graduates in the Moncton area. The
survey is designed to gather information on your career plans and your perspective on Moncton?s
future growth. It should only take a few minutes to complete the questions.
Please note that your survey data may be compromised if you start on one computer and finish on
another. Partially completed surveys may be saved and finished later, provided the same computer is
used.
If you have any questions about completing the survey, please contact Dr. Bruce Kellison via e-mail at
Bruce@icc.utexas.edu or by phone at (512) 475-7813.
We thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Page 3
Consent Form for Moncton Survey
Scroll down to consent to the terms of the survey.
Introduction
You are being asked to complete a survey as part of a research study being conducted on behalf of
the City of Moncton by the University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin). This form provides you with
information about the study. Please read the information below. Your participation is entirely
voluntary. You can refuse to participate without penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise
entitled. You can stop your participation at any time and your refusal will not impact current or future
relationships with UT Austin, the City of Moncton, your school, or your employer.
The purpose of this study is to analyze the technology economy of Moncton, NB, and recommend
strategies for accelerating business creation and economic development in the city.
Total estimated time to complete the survey is 20 minutes.
Risks of taking the survey:
? The risk associated with this survey is no greater than everyday life.
?This survey may involve risks that are currently unforeseeable. If you wish to discuss the information
above or any other risks you may experience, you may call the Principal Investigator listed on this form.
Benefits of taking the survey:
111 Students were directed to either page 1 or page 9 depending on their response to the question.
142
Report B
? There are no individual benefits for participation in this survey.
? One possible benefit to Moncton might be accelerated development of the city?s technology
workforce and business base.
Compensation/Costs:
? There is no compensation or cost for participation in this survey.
Confidentiality and Privacy Protections:
? The University of Texas at Austin procedures for handling confidential data will be strictly followed.
Data will be stored in a locked room; all parties who have access to data will sign Data Confidentiality
agreements; and data analysis will be conducted on computers without internet access to minimize
the risk posed by potential hackers.
? The data resulting from your participation may be made available to other researchers in the future
for research purposes not detailed within this consent form. In these cases, the data will contain no
identifying information that could associate you with it, or with your participation in any study.
The records of this study will be stored securely and kept confidential. Authorized persons from The
University of Texas at Austin, members of the Institutional Review Board, and the City of Moncton have
the legal right to review your records and will protect the confidentiality of those records to the extent
permitted by law. All publications will exclude any information that would make it possible to identify
you as a subject.
Contacts and Questions:
If you have any questions about the survey or the study, contact the researchers directly. Their
names, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses are at the bottom of this page. If you have questions
about your rights as a research participant, complaints, concerns, or questions about the research,
please contact Lisa Leiden, Ph.D., Chair of The University of Texas at Austin Institutional Review Board
for the Protection of Human Subjects, (512) 471-8871 or email: orsc@uts.cc.utexas.edu.
Research conducted by:
Dr. Bruce Kellison of the Bureau of Business Research, IC? Institute, The University of Texas at Austin
(512-475-7813, bruce@icc.utexas.edu); and
Dr. David Gibson of the IC? Institute, The University of Texas at Austin (512-475-8941,
davidg@icc.utexas.edu).
If you agree to take the survey, please click the box, below, and you will begin the survey.112
I agree to the terms and wish to proceed.
I do not agree to the terms.
Page 3
You cannot proceed until you choose to consent to the terms of this survey. If you have questions
about any of the items stated in the agreement, please contact the researchers:
Dr. Bruce Kellison
IC? Institute
The University of Texas at Austin
(512) 475-7813
bruce@icc.utexas.edu
Dr. David Gibson
IC? Institute
The University of Texas at Austin
(512) 475-8941
davidg@icc.utexas.edu
112 Students were required to answer this question to proceed. If a student chose not to consent, he/she was
directed to page 3. If the student consented he/she was directed to page 4.
143
Report B
Your opinions are valuable to this endeavor and can be highly beneficial to the City of Moncton. You
may review the consent form again by clicking ?review? below. Otherwise you will be prompted to exit
the survey.
Review
Exit
Page 4
What was your major or primary field of study?
Agriculture and Related Sciences
Architecture and Planning
Area, Ethnic, Cultural, and Gender Studies
Arts, Visual and Performing
Biological and Biomedical Sciences
Business
Communication and Journalism
Communications Technologies
Computer and Information Sciences
Construction Trades
Education
Engineering
Engineering Technologies
English Language and Literature
Family and Consumer Sciences
Health Professions and Related Clinical Sciences
History
Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics
Law and Legal Studies
Liberal Arts and Sciences, General Studies, and Humanities
Library Science
Math and Statistics
Mechanic and Repair Technologies
Military
Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies
Natural Resources and Conservation
Parks, Recreation, and Fitness
Personal and Culinary Services
Philosophy and Religion
Physical Sciences
Precision Production Trades
Psychology
Public Administration and Social Services
Science Technologies
Security and Protective Services
Social Sciences
Theological Studies and Religious Vocations
Transportation and Materials Moving
Professionally, what are you planning to do immediately after graduation?
Attend graduate school.
Stay in Moncton to work.
144
Report B
Leave Moncton to work.
Other (please specify) ________________________
Page 5
Are you planning to stay in Moncton to work now that you have graduated?113
Yes
No
Why or why not?
Page 6
If yes, for what organization will you work?
Organization Name ___________________________
Don?t know _____________________________
If you are remaining in Moncton to work, how important is each of the following factors in your
decision to stay? (Choose only one response for each factor.)
Very Somewhat Somewhat Not
Important Important Unimportant Important
Family-related issues
(parents, spouse, significant other) ? ? ?
?
Relatively vibrant local/regional
economy in Moncton ? ? ?
?
Good high-paying jobs available in
my field in Moncton ? ? ?
?
Good quality of life (cost of living;
recreation; weather; lifestyle) in Moncton ? ? ?
?
Friends in Moncton ? ? ?
?
Access to, and quality of,
health care facilities in Moncton ? ? ?
?
113 Students were directed either to page 5 or page 6 depending on their response to the question.
145
Report B
Page 7
If you are NOT going to stay in Moncton to work, how important is each of the following factors in your
decision to stay? (Choose only one response for each factor.)
Very Somewhat Somewhat Not
Important Important Unimportant Important
Family-related issues
(parents, spouse, significant other) ? ? ?
?
in another region
Relatively stagnant local/regional
economy in Moncton ? ? ?
?
Not enough high-paying jobs in
my field in Moncton ? ? ?
?
Relatively poorer quality of life in
Moncton than where I will live now
(cost of living; recreation; weather;
lifestyle) ? ? ?
?
Access to, and quality of,
health care facilities that do not
exist in Moncton ? ? ?
?
If you are NOT going to stay in Moncton after graduation, what income level would it take in a job in
Moncton to persuade you to stay and work here?
$15,000 ? 24,999
$25,000 ? 34,999
$35,000 ? 44,999
$45,000 ? 54,999
$55,000 ? 64,999
$65,000 ? 74,999
$75,000 ? 84,999
$85,000+
If you are moving from Moncton, to what city will you be moving to work or look for work?
________________________________
Why are you moving there?
146
Report B
Page 8
Did you work while attending college or university?
Yes
No
Did you have an internship (part-time) or a summer job with a Moncton-based employer during your
degree plan?
Yes
No
If you selected yes, was it:
Paid
Unpaid
What could Moncton do to help you make a decision to live and work in Moncton?
In which field are you currently working or seeking employment?
Agriculture
Architecture, Engineering, and Drafting
Arts, Visual and Performing
Business and Finance
Community and Social Services
Construction
Education, Museum Work, and Library Science
Environment
Graphic Design
Health Care Support
Health Diagnosis and Treatment
Health Technology
Information Technology
Installation and Repair
Law and Government
Management
Media and Communications
Office and Administrative Support
Personal care and Culinary Services
Production
Protective Services
Sales
Science
Social Science
Software Development
Sports and Fitness
Transportation
Video Game Development
What do/did you enjoy most about living in Moncton?
147
Report B
What do/did you enjoy least about living in Moncton?
Please tell us a little about yourself.
Gender:
Male
Female
Age:
Under 20 years
20 ? 30 years
30 ? 40 years
40 ? 50 years
Over 50 years
Number of Years in Moncton:
Less than 1
1 ? 5
5 ? 10
10 ? 20
More than 20
Did you have financial aid while attending college?
Yes
No
Would you have benefited from more career counseling and/or job placement assistance at your
college or university
Yes
No
Hometown Province (Check one)114
Alberta
British Columbia
Manitoba
New Brunswick
Newfoundland and Labrador
Northwest Territories
Nova Scotia
Nunavut
Ontario
Prince Edward Island
Quebec
Saskatchewan
Yukon Territory
Other (please specify) ____________________________
114 Students were directed to page 17 after completion of this question.
148
Report B
Fran?ais
Page 9
Merci de participer ? notre sondage de r?cents ou futurs gradu?s universitaires dans la r?gion de
Moncton. Ce sondage est con?u pour rassembler des renseignements sur vos plans de carri?re et vos
impressions sur la croissance future de Moncton. Ceci ne devrait exiger que quelques minutes de
votre temps.
S.V.P prendre en notes que ce sondage ne peux pas ?tre commenc? sur un ordinateur et terminer sur
un autre. Cependant, les sondages partiellement compl?t?s peuvent ?tre enregistr?s et compl?t?s
plus tard si faits sur le m?me ordinateur.
Si vous aviez des questions concernant le sondage, s.v.p. contacter M. R?jean Hall par courriel
(hallr@umoncton.ca) ou par t?l?phone au (506) 858-4336.
Nous vous remercions ? l? avance pour votre coop?ration.
Page 10
Formulaire de consentement pour l??tude de Moncton
Introduction:
Nous vous demandons de compl?ter un sondage dans le cadre d?une recherche dirig?e pour le
compte de la Ville de Moncton par l?Universit? du Texas ? Austin (UT Austin). Ce formulaire vous
fournit des renseignements sur l??tude.
Svp lire le texte ci-dessous.
Votre participation est enti?rement volontaire. Vous pouvez refuser de participer sans encourir
quelque peine que ce soit perte d?avantages auxquels vous ?tes autrement autoris?s. Vous pouvez
arr?ter votre participation ? tout moment et votre refus sera sans cons?quence aucune sur vos
relations actuelles ou futures avec l?UT Austin, la Ville de Moncton, l?Universit? de Moncton, votre
institution ou votre employeur.
Le but de cette ?tude est d?analyser l??conomie du secteur des technologies de Moncton N.-B., et de
recommander des strat?gies pour acc?l?rer la cr?ation d?entreprises dans la ville et son
d?veloppement ?conomique.
Le temps total estim? pour compl?ter ce sondage est de 20 minutes.
Risques de compl?ter ce sondage:
-Le risque associ? avec ce sondage n?est pas plus grand que la vie de tous les jours.
-Cette ?tude pourrait impliquer des risques qui sont actuellement impr?visibles. Si vous souhaitiez
discuter des renseignements ci-dessus ou autres risques que vous pourriez ?prouver, vous pouvez
contacter l?Investigateur principal identifi? sur ce formulaire.
Les avantages de compl?ter ce sondage:
- Il n?y a pas d?avantages personnels d?coulant de la participation ? ce sondage.
- Un avantage possible pour Moncton serait un d?veloppement acc?l?r? de la main-d??uvre
technologique de la ville et la sa base d?entreprises.
Compensation/Co?ts
149
Report B
- Il n?y a aucune compensation/r?mun?ration ou aucun co?t associ? ? votre participation ? ce
sondage.
Protections de la confidentialit? et de la vie priv?e:
- Les proc?dures de l?Universit? du Texas ? Austin visant le traitement de donn?es confidentielles
seront suivie ? la lettre. Les donn?es seront emmagasin?es dans un local ferm? ? clef. Toute
personne ayant acc?s aux donn?es devront des ententes de confidentialit? de donn?es. Les analyses
de donn?es seront effectu?es sur des ordinateurs sans acc?s ? l?internet pour minimiser les risques
?ventuels pos?s par les pirates informatiques.
-Les donn?es qui r?sultent de votre participation pourraient ? l?avenir ?tre mises ? la disposition de
d?autres chercheurs pour des fins de recherche non pr?cis?es dans ce formulaire de consentement.
Dans ces cas, les donn?es ne contiendront pas de renseignements sp?cifiques qui pourraient vous
associer avec celles-ci ou avec votre participation dans n?importe quelle ?tude.
Les dossiers de cette ?tude seront stock?s dans un endroit s?r et seront gard?s confidentiels. Les
personnes autoris?es de l?Universit? du Texas ? Austin, les membres du Conseil de Revue
Institutionnel de l?U. du Texas ? Austin, et la ville de Moncton auront le droit l?gal d?examiner vos
donn?es et prot?geront la confidentialit? de ces donn?es dans la mesure permise par la loi. Toute
publication exclura toute information qui puisse permettre de vous identifier comme sujet du sondage.
Contacts et questions:
Si vous aviez des question concernant l??tude ou la recherche comme telle, contactez M. R?jean Hall
par courriel (hallr@umoncton.ca) ou par t?l?phone au (506) 858-4336, ou encore les chercheurs
dont les noms, num?ros de t?l?phones et adresses ?lectroniques apparaissent au bas de cette page.
Si vous avez des questions concernant vos droits comme participant ou participante de recherche,
des plaintes, des inqui?tudes ou des questions concernant cette recherche, s.v.p. contacter Lisa
Leiden, Ph.D, la pr?sidente du Conseil de revue institutionnelle pour la protection de sujets humains
de l?Universit? du Texas ? Austin, (512) 471-8871 ou orsc@uts.cc.utexas.edu.
Cette recherche a ?t? pr?par?e et est dirig?e par:
Dr. Bruce Kellison, Bureau of Business Research, IC? Institute, The University of Texas at Austin (512-
475-7813, bruce@icc.utexas.edu); et Dr. David Gibson du IC? Institute, The University of Texas at
Austin (512-475-8941, davidg@icc.utexas.edu.)
Si vous consentez ? compl?ter ce sondage, s?il vous pla?t cliquer sur la case ? oui ?:
Oui
Non
Page 11
Vous ne pouvez pas proc?der jusqu'? ce que vous choisissiez de consentir aux termes de cette ?tude.
Si vous avez des questions de n'importe quel des articles affirm?s dans l'accord, S.V.P. contacter les
chercheurs:
Dr. Bruce Kellison
Institut de IC?
Universit? de Texas ? Austin
(512) 475-7813
bruce@icc.utexas.edu
Dr. David Gibson
Institut de IC?
Universit? de Texas ? Austin
(512) 475-8941
davidg@icc.utexas.edu
150
Report B
Vos opinions sont important ? cette ?tude et peut ?tre extr?mement avantageux pour la Ville de
Moncton. Vous pouvez r?examiner la forme de consentement encore en cliquetant ?revue? au
dessous. Autrement vous serez incit? pour sortir l'?tude.
Revue
Sortie
Page 12
Quel ?tait votre domaine principal d??tudes?
Agriculture
Architecture et planification
?tudes r?gionales, ethniques, culturelles, et portant sur les genres (femmes/hommes)
Arts visuels ou de la sc?ne
Sciences biologiques ou m?dicales
Commerce ou administration
Communications et journalisme
Technologies des communications
Informatique ou sciences de l'information
M?tiers de la construction
?ducation
Ing?nierie
Technologies de l'ing?nierie
Litt?rature et langue anglaise ou fran?aise
Sciences familiales
Professions de la sant? et sciences cliniques connexes
Histoire
Linguistique, langues et litt?rature
Droit
Humanit?s
Biblioth?conomie
Statistiques et math?matiques
M?canique et r?paration
Militaire
?tudes multidisciplinaires
Conservation et ressources naturelles
Parcs et r?cr?ation
Services culinaires et soins personnels
Philosophie et religion
Sciences physiques
M?tiers de production de pr?cision
Psychologie
Administration publique et services sociaux
Technologies des sciences
S?curit? et services de protection
Sciences sociales
?tudes th?ologiques et vocations religieuses
Transport et manutention des mat?riaux
Professionnellement, quels sont vos plans ?midiatement apr?s la graduation ?
Suivre d?autres ?tudes
Trouver un emploi avec le gouvernement.
Trouver un emploi avec un secteur
Autre ________________________
151
Report B
Page 13
Planifier vous de travailler, ou travailler vous actuellement dans la r?gion de Moncton apr?s la
graduation ?115
Oui
Non
Pourquoi oui ou pourquoi non ?
Page 14
Si oui, pour quel organisation voudriez-vous travailler ?
Nom de l?organisation ___________________________
Je ne sais pas________________________
Si vous restez a Moncton pour travailler, comment important sont les facteurs suivant pour votre
d?cisions de rester ? (Choisir seulement une r?ponse par facteur.)
Tr?s Relativement Relativement Sans
Important Important Sans Important Important
Facteurs familiaux (parents, ?poux,
conjoint, conjointe) dans une autre
r?gion ? ? ?
?
?conomie locale / r?gionale
relativement stagnante ? Moncton ? ? ?
?
Nombre insuffisant ? Moncton
d?emplois ? salaire ?lev? dans mon
domaine ? ? ?
?
Qualit? de vie relativement pauvre ?
Moncton en comparaison du lieu ou
j?irai vivre (co?t de la vie ; r?cr?ation ;
climat ; style de vie) ? ? ?
?
Acc?s ? des installations de soins
de sant? de qualit? qui ne sont pas
disponibles ? Moncton ? ? ? ?
115 Students were directed either to page 5 or page 6 depending on their response to the question.
152
Report B
Page 15
Si vous ne restez PAS ? Moncton pour le travail, quelle est l?importance des facteurs suivants dans
votre d?cision de partir ? (Choisir seulement une r?ponse par facteur.)
Tr?s Relativement Relativement Sans
Important Important Sans Important Important
Facteurs familiaux (parents, ?poux,
conjoint, conjointe) dans une autre
r?gion ? ? ?
?
?conomie locale / r?gionale
relativement stagnante ? Moncton ? ? ?
?
Nombre insuffisant ? Moncton
d?emplois ? salaire ?lev? dans mon
domaine ? ? ?
?
Qualit? de vie relativement pauvre ?
Moncton en comparaison du lieu ou
j?irai vivre (co?t de la vie ; r?cr?ation ;
climat ; style de vie) ? ? ?
?
Acc?s ? des installations de soins
de sant? de qualit? qui ne sont pas
disponibles ? Moncton ? ? ? ?
Si vous ne restez pas ? Moncton apr?s la graduation, quel serait le niveau de revenu d?un emploi ?
Moncton qui r?ussirait ? vous convaincre de rester et travailler ici ?
$15,000 ? 24,999
$25,000 ? 34,999
$35,000 ? 44,999
$45,000 ? 54,999
$55,000 ? 64,999
$65,000 ? 74,999
$75,000 ? 84,999
$85,000+
Si vous comptez d?m?nager de Moncton, ? quelle ville d?m?nagerez-vous pour travailler ou chercher
du travail ? ________________________________
Pourquoi d?m?nagerez-vous l? ?
Page 16
Avez-vous travaill? pendant vos ?tudes ?
Oui
153
Report B
Non
Aviez-vous un stage (? temps partiel) ou un emploi d??t? ici-m?me ? Moncton?
Oui
Non
Si oui, ?tiez-vous:
Pay?
Non r?mun?r?
Qu?est ce que Moncton pourrait faire pour vous aider ? prendre la d?cision de travailler et vivre ?
Moncton ?
Quel est le domaine dans lequel vous travaillez pr?sentement ou cherchez un employ ?
Agriculture
Architecture, ing?nierie, et dessin
Arts visuels ou de la sc?ne
Commerce et finance
Communaut? et services sociaux
Informatique et math?matiques
Construction
?ducation, mus?ologie et biblioth?conomie
Environnement
Soutien ? la sant?
Diagnostic et traitement en sant?
Technologies de la sant?
Installation et r?paration
Droit et gouvernement
Administration
Communications et m?dia
Soutien de bureau ou de gestion
Soins personnel et services culinaires
Production
Services de protection
Ventes
Sciences
Sciences sociales
Conditionnement physique et sports
Transport
Qu?est ce que vous aimez ou aimiez le plus comme r?sident de Moncton ?
Qu?est ce que vous aimez ou aimiez le moins comme r?sident de Moncton ?
S.V.P. parler nous un peu de vous.
Sexe:
M?le
Femelle
Age:
154
Report B
Plus jeune que 20
20 ? 30
30 ? 40
40 ? 50
Plus vieux que 50
Ann?es v?cues ? Moncton
Moins que 1 ann?e
1 - 5 ann?es
5 - 10 ann?es
10 - 20 ann?es
Plus que 20 ann?es
Avez-vous re?u de l?aide financi?re pendant vos ?tudes ?
Oui
Non
Auriez-vous profit? de plus de conseils sur la carri?re et/ou sur la recherche d?emploi ? votre coll?ge
ou universit??
Oui
Non
Votre province d'origine:
Alberta
Colombie Britannique
L??le du Prince Edward
Manitoba
Nouveau-Brunswick
Nouvelle Ecosse
Nova Scotia
Nunavut
Ontario
Qu?bec
Saskatchewan
Terre Neuve et Labrador
Territoire du Nord Ouest
Territoire du Yukon
Other (please specify) ____________________________
Page 17
We thank you very much for your time and effort in completing this survey.
If you wish to provide additional substantive comments or to communicate other relevant information
beyond your responses, please send an email to: Bruce@icc.utexas.edu
Nous vous remercions pour votre temps et votre effort pour compl?ter ce sondage.
Si vous souhaitez fournir d?autres commentaire importants ou communiquer d?autres id?es
pertinentes au-del? de vos r?ponses , s.v.p. envoyer un courriel ? : Bruce@icc.utexas.edu et
hallr@umoncton.ca
155
Report B
APPENDIX C. OPEN RESPONSES TO SURVEY
Note ? responses are not distinguished by university and French responses have been translated
Professionally what are you planning to do immediately after graduation?
Other (please specificy):
? ?Stay in Moncton while taking distance ed graduate studies?
? ?Staying in Sackville for time being?
? ?Get letters after my name, wherever?
? ?Attend school?
? ?Internship in France?
? ?Going out west then back to Moncton?
? ?Go to university then get my CGA?
? ?I'm from out of town, so I'm staying in my town?
? ?Take 2 more courses at [different local university]?
Why or why not are you planning to stay/not stay in Moncton?
? ?At the moment as I have bought a home and have access to the facilities and community I need
in regards to my involvement with the arts while living in a small town?
? ?Not in the long run, not much room for expansion in Moncton. While I am in Moncton for now, I
don't see it being for a lifetime. Moncton offers jobs, not careers and we hardly have a business
sense in this city, everything is handled cheaply and we get 'dead-end' sector jobs, such as call
centers. I have a good job, but the city itself is rather dull.?
? ?I am going to university to get my Education degree, then I want to go back to Moncton to work. I
want to do back to Moncton because I grew up there and the city is doing a lot to grow and is
becoming one of the top cities in the Maritimes.?
? ?At the moment I am in Paris teaching English in order to improve my French speaking skills as I
did a French major and am looking to do my best to eventually become a French teacher in
Canada.?
? ?I?m working right now.?
? ?No openings in the aircraft industry.?
? ?Interesting.?
? ?I?d rather be home close to family.?
? ?Not from Moncton.?
Why are you moving there?
? ?For a change really. I've lived in Moncton my whole life. I want new exciting adventures.?
? ?I moved to Ottawa following graduation to attend graduate school at Carleton University. Once I
have received my MA in Experimental Psychology, I will probably not move back to Moncton
because there are no jobs there that are in my area of expertise. There are more job
opportunities in Ottawa. Also, attending grad school in Ottawa, I will have made connections that I
will not have in Moncton.?
? ?It's hard to stay in the same city you grew up in, especially if you haven't done much traveling. I'd
like to get out and see the rest of Canada before I settle down.?
? ?I have moved to Oita because I have a job here.?
? ?My fianc? would like to move there and I feel that there are more job possibilities there. Also I
am considering going to grad school there.?
? ?More culture, music, entertainment, etc.?
? ?To take a Bachelor of Science Degree in Pharmacy.?
? ?Better work opportunities. Even if the cost of living is slightly higher, my income potential
compensates for it. There is also an efficient public transit system in Toronto, which is important
to me ? I will not require a vehicle in order to go to work which saves a significant amount of
money (not to mention better for the environment). I also have family in Toronto.?
? ?Higher positions and better business people to deal with. Overall, a more professional city for my
line of work.?
? ?To attend school and to work?
156
Report B
? ?Better pay; More opportunities in my field; More culture (restaurants, arts, entertainment,
theatre); Bilingualism not an issue?
? ?Personal reasons/bigger city, thus more diverse?
? ?To work in my field; greater openings?
? ?I am actually already living in Calgary, for the reason that there is no work in NB. I was offered a
job here before even?
? ?I'm moving in any state or province that has good high-paying jobs. Mostly, a warm place as well
as west Canada, mid-east or mid-west and south of United States.?
? ?Much opportunity?
? ?Family?
? ?This is where my future is?
? ?I found a job in Fredericton immediately following graduation. The job offered good pay, good
benefits, and job security.?
? ?Because I found a job there. I am also considering continuing my education in Moncton again
next year.?
? ?Hired by a major Engineering Firm?
? ?This is my home town, all my family is here, and it was mine and my boyfriend?s decision to move
back?
? ?Higher paying jobs. Unionized work.?
? ?Money?
What could Moncton do to help you make a decision to work and live in Moncton?
? ?More jobs available to work in the government.?
? ?Assist in career finding?
? ?Actively recruit graduated students to work in their city. Offer attractive pay. Alberta is attracting
a lot of graduated university students because the pay is better. The Maritimes in general have a
reputation as not doing so well economically speaking.?
? ?Offer more variety in employment that are NOT related to call centers. Enough with claiming
Moncton as the 'call center' capital of North America.?
? ?More higher paying jobs. Equal opportunity for both French and English speaking citizens. A
place of employment should have the same number of English speaking employees as they do
French speaking. Bilingualism eliminates a lot of valuable employees both French and English
speaking. As long as a company can service the public in both languages, bilingualism is
unnecessary.?
? ?Moncton can't do much itself; if the province paid teachers more, I'd stay in New Brunswick for
sure.?
? ?Offer better paying positions?
? ?I would not stay in Moncton to work?
? ?Work with landlords to have more affordable housing.?
? ?Nothing?
? ?Increase wages.?
? ?At present, nothing. Perhaps, the foundation of an English University to better suit the needs of
the population.?
? ?A more vibrant arts community.?
? ?Organize business conferences for recent graduates. Maintain high degree of bilingual services,
as well as good relations with neighboring Dieppe and Riverview. Continue to open the economy
(i.e. international flights, diversified sectors, etc)??
? ?Build an economy and jobs for the least. Moncton is the so called city where nothing happens.
For business people, Moncton is not a good place to be.?
? ?More diversified business opportunities, allow for Anglophone individuals to not be as readily
discriminated against when applying for work, work towards improving their greenspace
development, and implement a downtown revitalization project to attract businesses to their dying
downtown area.?
? ?Offer well paying jobs for university graduates.?
? ?More recruiting from companies in science based business.?
? ?Recruit more businesses that are looking for young talent with opportunity for advancement (i.e.
no more call centers!)?
157
Report B
? ?Trees - it is a very ugly city. Better road planning - for the small size traffic and layout is horrid.?
? ?I am attending med school in the states, and I want to come back to Canada. If my family is still
in Moncton, and if Moncton continues to grow, then I might come back?
? ?A good paying job that is related to my field in social sciences?
? ?Having more companies that do aircraft maintenance?
? ?Better jobs which offer better money.?
? ?Have new businesses that give good wages.?
? ?To offer good jobs in the field and raise a little bit of the wages.?
? ?I'm in Alberta right now and they pay a lot better here I know the economy is based on oil but hey
students can get good pay here compare to New Brunswick. People are getting tired of New
Brunswick low paying jobs me too. Do something Moncton or else bye bye!!!!!!!!?
? ?Help business start-ups?
? ?Encourage local employers to hire recent graduates from local universities and colleges.?
? ?Have higher wages and more jobs open to the public for Federal and provincial Government jobs?
? ?Top everything I currently have at work. (pay, benefits and security)?
? ?Offer better transportation plans. Offer more jobs related to my field of study; most available jobs
in New Brunswick are in Fredericton or Saint John.?
? ?Better jobs in Accounting that don?t request too much experience I did a job hunt [and found]
nothing interesting or full-time. That's a [frustrating] for me and I'm still frustrated that I have to
do work at a job with very little accounting in it for less than $10 per hour I was getting that before
going to college I didn't go to college for an extra quarter?
? ?Offer online graduate degrees for working people. Help pay down my 60, 000 dollars in student
loan debt. I graduated from Human Resources, and I currently work in Human Resources. (No
available choice in scroll)?
? ?Offer me a decent paying job.?
? ?More Engineering firms?
? ?Increase wages?
? ?More jobs for English speaking people. Too many employers are asking for bilingual workers
when it is not really mandatory, especially the federal & provincial government. Many employees
claim they are bilingual because they can speak French, however, when asked to communicate in
written French, they would rather communicate in English - but yet they get the jobs!?
? ?Better paying jobs for our field of study?
? ?Ensure that those coming out into the IT filed have well paying jobs.?
? ?Not were I want to be?
? ?Not much?
? ?Make it easier to find work & easier/cheaper to pay/find apartments with everything included
because most apartments do not have everything included.?
? ?Better planning in the road system particularly connecting highways such as wheeler and # 2?
? ?I?d never live in Moncton city taxes are to high there is very little jobs in marketing and business
unless you got 3-6 years experience I got a course thought can only work in call centers?
? ?N/A I have lived in Riverview (a suburb of Moncton) all my life and will not be leaving anytime
soon.?
? ?Unionized jobs.?
What do/did you enjoy most about living in Moncton?
? ?Sport teams and facilities?
? ?Family, clean city, Maritimes.?
? ?It's more relaxed than a huge city. It's relatively safe and has nice parks (although Mapleton Park
will suffer once Frampton Lane is put through to Mapleton which is a major turnoff for me).?
? ?I actually don't live in Moncton though I grew up there I would not return to the city or surrounding
area the closes I would reside to Moncton is Sackville.?
? ?Low crime rate, clean environment, friendly neighbors and relatively happy and low stress
attitude of many citizens.?
? ?Family?
? ?Awesome people, diverse culture (i.e. Anglophone and Acadians), everything else is within a
short distance (i.e. Parlee Beach, PEI, Halifax, Saint John)...Moncton really is the hub of the
Maritimes.?
158
Report B
? ?My family?
? ?Having friends and family close by.?
? ?I have never lived in Moncton although I work there full time right now. I really enjoy working
there however I commute from Sackville every day and I do not enjoy the drive.?
? ?Relatively safe?
? ?Close proximity of goods and services. Smaller size in terms of metropolitan.?
? ?Centrality of services, family and friends, friendliness of the general populace.?
? ?Lots of space, easy transportation, abundance of daily services, central locality in the Atlantic
region.?
? ?It is fairly dynamic relative to most places elsewhere in the Maritimes; the bilingual community,
the arts scene.?
? ?Quiet, not much traffic.?
? ?Friends and family. Peacefulness.?
? ?Friends and Family?
? ?Enjoyed the small size of the city, mainly for transportation reasons.?
? ?Big city feel without Big city problems; Low cost of living?
? ?Technically I have never lived in Moncton, seeing that [local university is located in Sackville,
some 50km away towards the Nova Scotia boarder. The drastic differences between Moncton
and Sackville are beyond comparing.?
? ?It?s a small city, but at the same time we have all the conveniences very close by.?
? ?The size, culture, and bilingualism. It?s also simple to get around?
? ?The people?
? ?Family and friends are here?
? ?My friends, sports, downtown scene?
? ?Friendliness, size, family?
? ?Good social life?
? ?Just being home with family. People were pretty nice. And it's easy to get around [be]cause it's
not a huge city, but it's big enough for what you need.?
? ?Nothing specific?
? ?People are great?
? ?I mostly enjoy the calm and visiting the surrounding area of Moncton.?
? ?Peace and quiet?
? ?The women.?
? ?A lot of things to do, great night life, easy to get around town (buses).?
? ?Being close to everything - I live outside of the city limits but it is easy to access Moncton's
center.?
? ?Friends, cost of living, environment?
? ?Close to everything that I needed while at school.?
? ?Ability to volunteer at several places. Cheap rent. Areas are relatively close together, within
biking distance?
? ?Friends and a lot of activities in Moncton since it's an area that's booming (as in growth)?
? ?Moncton Mariposa Skating Club (volunteer four nights a week) Close to Nova Scotia where I am
originally from. Both official languages are used.?
? ?It has a lot of things. A lot to offer people living in the Moncton area.?
? ?City offers almost everything?
? ?People, social life?
? ?The atmosphere, friendly people, close to everything?
? ?The nice area.?
? ?The atmosphere the activity's that Moncton offers their residence?
? ?Great shopping?
? ?There is always something to do. I am never bored in a big city like Moncton since I grew up in a
small town.?
? ?The bilingualism?
? ?My family and friends?
? ?Being close to the bars and stores?
? ?Plenty to do and close to beaches?
? ?I live in Riverview, not Moncton. And I live there because it is 'home'?
159
Report B
? ?Everything was not a far drive away, good highway system.?
? ?Everything?
What do/did you least enjoy about living in Moncton?
? ?Poor bus system.?
? ?Dieppe?
? ?Downtown is too small. Other cities the size of Moncton (such as Fredericton) have a more
bustling downtown life. Moncton has one older street (Main Street) and it lacks character.?
? ?The lack of decent jobs, you either work in a call centre or you get minimal pay for one of the few
other options. The constant road work being done. It seems that Monctonians have a fetish with
digging holes in the middle of streets, constantly.?
? ?Nothing, really. Great city. But I gotta move out, live on my own, in a different community for a
while, before I come back.?
? ?It is boring and lacks culture.?
? ?The city is too small.?
? ?Boredom.?
? ?Low wages.?
? ?Lack of job opportunities for [non-bi]lingual persons.
? ?Few special events of interest, lack of vibrancy in the downtown, lack of some specialty shops
and services.?
? ?The struggling downtown section. Moncton officials should reduce the focus on mini-malls and
suburb expansion, and focus instead on attracting quality jobs (services, manufacturing -
something other than retail), as well as build up (with high rises). At present, Moncton is
expanding too much geographically, and taking over important countryside land. ?
? ?It's homogenous in general, and I missed the diversity of Toronto.?
? ?Not sure where to start. It seems frustrating that most people are either on EI or work in a call
center in Moncton. I'm very fortunate to have the job I do.?
? ?No pro sports team, and lack of concerts.?
? ?Least enjoyed the requirement of speaking French proficiently.?
? ?Lack of culture. Lack of tolerance from the French community for non-French speaking
individuals?
? ?Smell - tidal boar has some interesting odors?
? ?Not diverse enough for me?
? ?It was dirty?
? ?Not being able to find a decent paying job that isn't call centre related?
? ?Poorly planned city - require a personal vehicle to really live in the city. No defined downtown
business area, instead businesses are spread across a large area?
? ?Lack of jobs in my field?
? ?No jobs....or pay way too low.?
? ?Just needed a change I guess.?
? ?A lot of jobs, but no decent wages.?
? ?I enjoy shopping, and the clubs at least.?
? ?There?s nothing there!!!!?
? ?Everyone else.?
? ?Lack of culture - there are many big venue concerts but there is no decent museum or venue for
local artists or performers. The Global Festival Place caters to the older crowd & family events not
venues for the 20 something. The Capitol Theatre has a limited variety. I would like to see more
promotion of local artists in the music scene and not solely focused on Acadian culture - which is a
vital part of the city but it is emphasized so much that the Anglophone community seems to be
forgotten - and I am sure there is just as much English talent as there is Acadian!?
? ?The jobs were hard to get quick with a good pay?
? ?Insane driving conditions.?
? ?There is very little to do for somebody who does not enjoy the bar scene.?
? ?High Cost in Rent that makes it hard on students.?
? ?The dirtiness, and the TERRIBLE transit system.?
? ?The traffic at times.?
? ?I really liked Moncton?
160
Report B
? ?Lost paying jobs due to quantity of technicians in area.?
? ?Salaries; lack of activities?
? ?That Moncton High School was located near a sketchy part of town.?
? ?Nothing?
? ?It is not my hometown?
? ?I guess I can't really say anything bad about Moncton but I would have to say that I least enjoyed
getting use to Moncton's environment, such as rush hour. It's tough moving from a small town to
a big city, there's lots of stress, but it's worth it.?
? ?The city planning or lack of?
? ?Gulls eating my garbage on the road; there worst that the raccoons in the country; the public
transit in Moncton is poorly organized?
? ?N/A?
? ?My banking area was downtown.[Toronto Dominion]?
? ?Pollution (Hard time sleeping in Moncton)?
? ?A few spots in the city are a little dodgy because of the drug problems there?
161
Report B
APPENDIX D. MONCTON TRI-CITY AREA IT COMPANY TIMELINE
Methodology & the Dataset
To create the Moncton Tri-City Area Information Technology Company Timeline, four primary
data elements were sought: company name, date established, basic services rendered, and
current number of employees. Preliminary on-ground research was conducted in Moncton by
a student researcher; this research was followed by IC? Institute staff research, which was
based on information available through a group of online business directories116. These
efforts resulted in a list of 482 company names that were reviewed for timeline inclusion,
Table D.1.
A surprising number of these companies have little or no Web presence, while many others
did not indicate date established in their online information. On a limited basis, companies
were contacted for this information in person, by telephone, or by email communication.
These combined efforts yielded 108 companies for the timeline graphic. Regrettably, the
research was unable to secure date established for many companies which were appropriate
to the dataset. Consequently the data presented should be considered as a ?random survey?
of local IT companies.
The dataset focuses on IT companies, although some may be peripheral to that industry. A
very real obligation in collecting this data is to determine which companies define this sector.
Companies represented on this timeline include business-to-business IT and
telecommunications service providers. Some niche ?high tech? industries, which are
represented in the Moncton tri-city area, would have been excluded as research progressed,
including aerospace and several others.
Timeline Trends
The timeline shows that at least eight present-day IT companies existed before 1970. Twelve
companies were confirmed as ?established? between 1970 and 1979. In the 1980?s that
number increased to 25. In the 1990?s, that number more than doubled to 55 companies
established. However, following the dot.com bust in 2000, new company formation slowed
appreciably. The growth rate for this decade will probably not match that of the 1990?s, with
17 new companies established (in seven out of the ten years from 2000 to 2009). While the
information presented is not a prefect representation of IT companies residing in Moncton,
the following trends seem true:
? many companies that now provide IT services were established before 1970, and
these companies ?grew? technology in their ranks providing an innovative
business base in the region
? the establishment dates for the companies shown on the timeline reflect the
overall growth pattern of the North American IT industry
? there is a relatively high rate of companies that have been acquired, and that
number is hard to separate from the actual attrition rate of companies that have
failed over the last three decades
116 The following online directories were accessed: Auracom, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters,
CanadaIT.com, FinditinCanada.ca, Localintheknow.com, strategis.gc.ca, Moncton for Business,
YellowPages.ca., YLM (Your Local Marketplace). In addition, networking links listed on some company Web
sites were sometimes investigated in the effort to identify additional Moncton area companies. While larger
companies appeared in most of these sources, small companies (especially micro-enterprises) showed
inconsistent presence, which indicates high probability that many small and emerging companies may not
represented in any of these sources, and therefore not included in the ?larger? list presented in this study.
162
Report B
163
Report B
164
Report B
Table D.1. Companies Reviewed for Timeline Inclusion (Moncton, Dieppe, Riverview)
Company Year Est. Employs
1. 2001 Digital Communications Inc.
2. A C G Ltd., (Atlantic Communications Group Ltd.) 1974 6
3. A.R.N. Ltd.
4. A-3 Speedy Cabling
5. ABC Networks
6. ABC Sound Services
7. Academy of Learning 6
8. Acadia Consultants & Inspectors Ltd. 1943 20
9. Accra Group Inc. 1994
10. Accra Med Software Inc 1999 6
11. Accra Solutions Inc 2004 6
12. Accra Web Services Inc 1996 3
13. ACS Accounting Consulting Services
14. ADI (Association of Designers & Inspectors) 1952 200
15. ads|help2003
16. Advanced Energy Management Ltd. 1986 27
17. Advanced Interactive inc
18. Advan-Tel Products Inc.
19. Advatek Systems Inc. 1987 7
20. Airconsol Aviation Services
21. Alexem Webs
22. Aliant 1999 10,000
23. All Star Communications 1983
24. Altron Color Imaging Ltd. 1991 4
25. AMEC E&C Services Ltd. 1982 20
26. Amiko Control System & Consulting 1999 7
27. Analyse Statistique des Maritimes 1990 1
28. Andrew McGillivary Architect Ltd. 1994 1
29. Antidote Entertainment 1999
30. Apex Industries Inc. 1961 240
31. Approach Navigation Systems 1992 13
32. Apropos Marketing Communications 2002 5
33. Aqua-Web Inc. 5
34. Architects Four Ltd. 1975 14
35. Architecture 2000Inc. 1990 18
36. Ardent Development 2003
37. Artech Technical Services Group Ltd. 1994 4
38. AstroCom Associates Inc 1993
39. Ataway Computer Training
40. Atelier de Design (NB) Ltee/Design Workshop (NB) Ltd. 1989 20
41. Atheneum Priority Management - Atlantica Learning
42. Atlantic Blue Cross 1943 1,200
43. Atlantic Cancer Research Institute 1998 20
44. Atlantic Cooperative Publishers
45. Atlantic Data Group 1973 9
165
Report B
46. Atlantic Foundation Ltd.
47. Atlantic Lottery 1976 360
48. Atlantica Learning Corporation Inc. 1984 11
49. Audio Data Co Ltd.
50. Audio-Video Specialists Inc.
51. Aurocom Moncton Internet Services 5
52. B.I.G. Info Tech 1
53. BBM Canada 1996 201
54. Bell Canada
55. Beltek Systems Design Inc. 1990 10
56. Big Data Computer Services Inc.
57. Biosense 1
58. Biotech Diffusion Inc.
59. BJW Electronics Ltd.
60. BKM Research & Development 1990 30
61. Black & McDonald Ltd. (IT Connection not clear) 1921 3,000
62. Blue Dragon Web Development 3
63. BMG Consultants/NetworkCentrix 1997 9
64. Bo Neon Ltee/Ltd. 1990 6
65. Boart Longyear Inc. 1957 20
66. Bourgeois VanDommelen Architect Group Ltd. 1994 2
67. Boyd R. Algee Architect Ltd. 4
68. Branch Graphic Design 1998 1
69. Bridgenet Technology Solutions
70. Brikson Computer Cabling Ltd. 1998 4
71. Bristol Communications Inc. 1997 125
72. Bryan M. Pettipas Surveys Ltd.
73. Business Development Bank of Canada 1944
74. Business New Brunswick
75. Business Technology Training Institute
76. Butterfly Moon International C S
77. Calhoun Research & Development
78. CallStar Ltd.
79. Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters (CME) 1996
80. Canadian Technology Network
81. CanadianParents.com
82. CandleWeb Creations 1998 2
83. Canos Consultants Inc.
84. CanSupply.com
85. Capital CAD Supplies Ltd. 2000 1
86. CareLink Inc.
87. CARIS
88. Caughtup.com
89. CCNB-Bathurst
90. Centennial Office Products Ltd.
91. Centre de recherche sur les aliments (CRA)
92. Centre de Technologie Manufacturi?re
93. Centre for Learning and Technology
94. Centre for Research and Development Services
166
Report B
95. Centric Systems Corp. (Celerity Enterprises)
96. Centrinity Inc.
97. CertifyOnline.com
98. CGI
99. Choice Resume Services
100. CIDIF
101. Cisco Systems Canada Ltd.
102. Clearflow.com
103. Clinidata Corporation 1983 350
104. Coastal Internet International
105. Coates Computer Services
106. cogniwiz
107. Com Dev Wireless Group
108. Compass Data Systems inc.
109. CompuCollege 1986
110. Computer Generated Solutions Canada
111. Computer Guy (The)
112. Computer World Inc.
113. Concept + Inc. (Concept Plus Inc.)
114. Concept Communications
115. Concept J MULTIMEDIA Inc 1999
116. Connectik Technologies 2002 5
117. Connetik Interactive/Connetik Technologies Inc 2001
118. ContentAlive
119. Cormier Gibbs
120. Corporation Hospitaliere Beausejour
121. Cotton & Associates
122. Crandall Engineering Ltd.
123. Credentia 2005
124. CrescentStudio.com
125. Custom Electronic Assemblies Ltd. 1985
126. Custom Webz
127. Cyber Outlaws 2
128. CyberDesign 26
129. Cynaptec Information Systems Inc. 1987 17
130. Daigle Surveys Ltd.
131. Data Nine Inc.
132. DataQC Inc.
133. dbi Systems
134. Dentech Dental Laboratory Inc.
135. Designed Solutions Ltd.
136. Digitus Communications
137. DISCribe Ltd.
138. DMG Consultants (STEP)
139. DMR Consulting Group Inc.
140. Double Port
141. dpt Communications Inc. 1996
142. Drake International 1951
143. Dramis Network Cabling Ltd. 1989 15
167
Report B
144. Eagle Eye, 1974? ACG Company 2000 1
145. Earthseed.ca
146. Eastern Battery Systems (1989) Ltd.
147. Eastern Business Computer Institute
148. Eastern Reinforcing Ltd.
149. Eastern Telecon 1
150. E-Com Inc. 1995 20
151. ecomdrive.com
152. EDP Consultants
153. EDS Canada
154. Edwards Sprinkler
155. EGA Computer Services 5
156. E-Hub Inc.
157. E-HUB.com
158. e-Hub.net 10
159. Electronic Components
160. Endless Realty
161. Energie NB Power 1,920
162. Enerplan Consultants Ltd. 1981 30
163. Engage Interactive Inc.
164. English Tutoring Services
165. Enterprise Saint John
166. Entertaining Knowledge
167. Environmatics
168. e-Perform
169. Executive 500 Business Centre Inc.
170. Exide Electronics Inc.
171. Falstaff Media 1992
172. FCS ? Fundy Computer Services 1975
173. Fennelley Group
174. Fitsoft Systems Inc.
175. FLOW Communications
176. Force/Robak Associates Ltd.
177. Foresight Animation Studios 1982 3
178. Foresight Marketing & Design Ltd. 1982 8
179. Freeway Technologies
180. Fundy Computer Services Ltd. 1975
181. Funeral Director's Choice
182. G4L Consulting Inc.
183. Galva Industries
184. Game Agents Corp
185. GCP
186. GDJ Cohoon & Associates
187. GE Capital
188. Genieo Prototype Inc.
189. Geo Referencing Systems Inc.
190. Geo Terra Mapping Inc. 4
191. Geodat
192. Geoplan Consultants Inc.
168
Report B
193. Giffels Enterprises 1951 1000
194. GK Computer Consulting
195. Global Advanced Technology
196. Global Net Solution 2000
197. Government of New Brunswick
198. Greater Moncton Economic Commission
199. Greystone Energy Systems Inc (IT Connection unclear)
200. Group Telecom
201. Groupe de d?veloppement Consortia
202. GTA Consultants en Peche 1987 3
203. Hansen Enterprises Ltd. 10
204. Hatchard Software 2003
205. Hawk Communications Inc. 1981 65
206. Health Connect - 80/20 Communications 25
207. Hi Lan Data Division
208. Hi Lan Electric 40
209. Hi-Tech Gaming 1989 45
210. Houssennet
211. Hub Dental Laboratory Ltd.
212. Hudson Design Group 1985
213. HUM Designs
214. iBank Custom Solutions
215. ICGlobal.com
216. ICT/Canada Marketing Inc.
217. ID Concept
218. Ikon Office Solutions Inc.
219. imagicTv Inc.
220. Imagine Success Inc.
221. Impact Blue
222. InColor Inc.
223. Incutech Brunswick Inc.
224. Indipro Systems Inc.
225. Indosoft
226. Industry Canada
227. infiKnowledge Inc. 1993 91
228. Infin Escape
229. Infoplexxus 1997 1
230. Information Technology Institute (ITI)
231. Inno M?dia
232. Inno Tech Inc.
233. Innovatia / Aliant
234. Innsystems
235. Inova Web.com
236. InteliSys Aviation Systems 1987
237. Intelisys Aviation Software
238. Interactive Visualization Systems Inc.
239. InterExport Consultants Inc
240. Internet Business Logic
241. Internet Outlook Inc.
169
Report B
242. Internet Software Technologies 1
243. Intertech Global Marketing Inc.
244. Inter-TRAIN-ment
245. Invensys Systems Canada Inc.
246. Irving Oil Limited
247. ithink interactive inc.
248. J. Van Horne
249. Jetha Aircraft Services Inc.
250. JM Computer Consultants Ltd 1987 1
251. John M. MacLean Management Ltd.
252. jot.inc
253. Kaidmar Services
254. Kaisen Group International
255. Kara Interactive
256. Keltic Technologies Group
257. Ken-Dar Computer Cleaning
258. Kensington Associates
259. Kerberos Information Technology
260. KV E-Living
261. Kwik Kopy Design & Print Centre
262. Landal inc. 5
263. Lansbridge University
264. LearnStream Inc.
265. Les Entreprises Giffels Inc
266. Les Productions Melodie D'Acadieville
267. Lexi Tech 1988 50
268. Librairie La Grande Ourse
269. Linx Technologies
270. Lloyd's Business Machine Repairs
271. M.O. Consultants 2
272. MacAulay Surveys 1985
273. MacFen Dot Com
274. Macfen.com 4
275. Mana-I enr
276. Maricor Group, Canada Ltd. 2003 100
277. Maritime Digital Colour
278. Maritime Information Management Services
279. Maritime Internet Properties Inc.
280. Maritime Technology Services
281. MarketGround
282. MarketNet
283. McCain Foods (Canada)
284. Media Magic
285. Media Planet
286. MediaNet Communications Inc. 2
287. MedSenses Inc.
288. MesoNetWorks 2006
289. Micro Action 1991 3
290. Micro Optics
170
Report B
291. MicroAge 1976 15
292. Millenium Info. Tech. Solutions Inc.
293. Mindsweep 2003
294. Miramichi Region Development Corporation
295. Miratech Inc.
296. Moncton Computer Exchange Ltd.
297. Moncton.net
298. Mondata IS Inc. 2
299. Mosaic Technologies Corporation
300. MotionFab Ltd.
301. My City Web.Com
302. Nanoptix 1996
303. Nanoptix Inc. 1996 25
304. National Research Council
305. NB Tel
306. NBTA
307. Nebs-Payweb
308. Nedco Telecom
309. Netco Electric Ltd.
310. NetworkCentrix 1994 9
311. Networks-911
312. New Brunswick Pharmaceutical Society (Society??)
313. New Wave Technologies
314. NexInnovations
315. Nortel
316. Nova Communications 1982 3
317. nrd designs
318. NuFocus 1996 5
319. Nuratek Enterprises Inc
320. N-Vision Plus Web Solutions Inc.
321. OAO Technologies Solutions 1996 300
322. Ocean Optical
323. OCRI
324. OMICS Software Inc.
325. Omnifacts Research Ltd.
326. On Power Systems Inc.
327. On Time Design
328. Optex Software
329. Opti Info
330. Optical Software Inc. 1989 20
331. O'Reilly C & Consultants
332. Owens Aerospace
333. PACE Engineering Ltd. 5
334. Papyrus Training (Formation)
335. Paradigm
336. Particle Works Inc. 3
337. PC Housecalls 1993 3
338. PC Medic
339. Peak Performance Systems
171
Report B
340. Petrel Communications Assoc.
341. Pierre Gallant Architect Inc. 1988 1
342. Pierre M. Boudreau 1
343. Pinnacle Wireless Solution
344. Pitney Bowes
345. Plexus Connectivity Solutions Ltd. 1989 30
346. Precisionart Technical Illustration
347. Premiere Lamination (appropriate?)
348. Primus Training & Consultants Associates 1997 12
349. Prizecade.com
350. Pro-Boards & Cables Ltd.
351. ProCare Water Treatment Inc.
352. Production Libres
353. Progressive Learning Centre Inc.
354. Proplus 2000 Inc. 1991 4
355. Pro-Results Inc.
356. Province of New Brunswick
357. Puff In A Cloud
358. Puppy Doodle Entertainment 2002 2
359. Quantum Training & Development Ltd.
360. R.E. LeBlanc Consultants Inc.
361. Red Ball Internet
362. Red Lion Group Inc.
363. Reeves Technologies
364. Regional Development Corporation
365. Reseau Innovation Nouveau-Brunswick
366. Rockwood Software Ltd.
367. Rogers AT&T Wireless
368. Rogers Communications - Call Centre 1986 3
369. Rogers Internet
370. Romulin Group Inc. 19
371. Rosalba Santori
372. Roy-Babin Multimedia Productions
373. Rydan Computer Services
374. S.B.P. Training Group
375. Satellite Services & Programming
376. Scorpio Net 2000 Inc.
377. Senior Watch Inc.
378. Service NB
379. Servicetek Electronics 1979
380. SG5 Innovation
381. SGE Acres Ltd.
382. ShareLine Systems Ltd. 9
383. ShiftCentral 2000 5
384. Showdog Productions Inc.
385. Silk Ventures Group Ltd.
386. Silver Fox Developments
387. Skills For You
388. Skyridge Systems Inc. 1996 1
172
Report B
389. Skyway Communications Inc.
390. Smart Force
391. Snowy Owl Productions
392. Softec
393. Software House International 1989
394. Softworld 2002
395. Sonoptic Technologies Inc. 1995 15
396. SOS Computer Data Recovery
397. Sound Specialists Inc. 1987
398. Sounds Fantastic (Aliant) 1979 20
399. South East Economic Commission, Inc.
400. Southhampton Computers 1991
401. Spectral Visualization and Development Inc. 1996
402. Speedy Communications
403. Spheric Technologies 2004
404. Spielo Manufacturing Inc. 1992 400
405. St Thomas University 1910
406. Standard Sound Systems Co. Ltd.
407. Steph Daigle Design 1992 1
408. Strategies Design & Communication 1998 6
409. Strophe Inc. 1992
410. Success College of Applied Art & Tech 1983 15
411. Sybertooth Inc. 1996 3
412. SYLC Solutions Inc./WSI 1995
413. Sylnx Systems 7-14
414. Systems Management Ltd.
415. Talbot Richard & Co-Numero de Cellulaire
416. Tantramar Interactive 1997 6
417. TeamWorks New Media 2002
418. Techno-Logic Machining Inc. 1997
419. Technology PEI
420. Telav Audio Visual Services
421. Tele Education NB
422. Teleduocom Inc.
423. Telemonotiring Manufacturing
424. TelVision Ltee/Ltd. 12
425. Terra Consultants
426. Terrain Group Inc. 1973 36
427. The Phi Phenomenon 2006 6
428. Theorix.com
429. Theorixe-com inc.
430. Theriault Raymond Graphiste 1981
431. Tima Scientific Inc. 1997 3
432. TMI-MultiHexa (CERVO Inc.) 5
433. Topcoat Solutions Inc.
434. Total Knowledge Workers 2,140
435. Total Pricing Systems Inc. 1991 3
436. Touchie Engineering 1980
437. Tracy's System Development Consulting Inc. 2
173
Report B
438. Trip Data & Safety Management Inc. 1993 3
439. Tritone Corporation
440. Tullamore e Consulting
441. Unisource 1992
442. Unitex N.B. Company Ltd. 1976 35
443. Valron Engineers Inc.
444. Veridoc Development Corps
445. Vimsoft 1994
446. Virtual World Inc.
447. Virtual-Agent Services
448. Vision Multimedia Inc.
449. VisionMD
450. Vital Knowledge Software Inc.
451. Vivide Consulting
452. VMC Group Atlantic (appropriate?)
453. Voice IQ
454. Wade Company Ltd. 2004 4
455. Web Training Solutions 4
456. WebPower Hosting
457. Whilrteq Inc.
458. Whitehill Technologies Inc. 1997 85
459. Whittaker Design & Associates Inc. 1976
460. Worldwide Webs Inc.
461. Write Choice Virtual Assistants
462. WSI (We Simplify the Internet)
463. xWave 2000 650
464. Yamatech Group, Inc. 2004
465. Zoomnet
174
Report B
APPENDIX E. BENCHMARKING CITY COMPARISONS
Table C. High-Tech Agglomeration Index and Population for 100 Metro Areas in the U.S.
Metro Are
a
Inde
x
Populatio
n
Metro Are
a
Inde
x
Populatio
n
San Jose, CA PMS
A
7.3
3
1,682,58
5
Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA PMS
A
1.2
9
1,918,00
9
Chicago, IL PMS
A
5.7
6
8,272,76
8
Kansas City, MO-KS MS
A
1.2
8
1,776,06
2
Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV PMS
A
4.5
9
4,923,15
3
Detroit, MI PMS
A
1.2
7
4,441,55
1
Boston, MA-NH PMS
A
4.5
7
3,406,82
9
Fort Worth-Arlington, TX PMS
A
1.2
6
1,702,62
5
New York, NY PMS
A
4.2
2
9,314,23
5
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MS
A
1.1
1
2,395,99
7
Dallas, TX PMS
A
3.9
3
3,519,17
6
Rochester, NY MS
A
1.0
8
1,098,20
1
Philadelphia, PA-NJ PMS
A
3.7
8
5,100,93
1
Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria, OH PMS
A
1.0
6
2,250,87
1
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA PMS
A
3.6
3
2,414,61
6
Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI PMS
A
1.0
3
1,500,74
1
Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA PMS
A
3.5
1
9,519,33
8
Indianapolis, IN MS
A
1.0
2
1,607,48
6
Atlanta, GA MS
A
2.9
2
4,112,19
8
Bergen-Passaic, NJ PMS
A
0.9
9
1,373,16
7
Oakland, CA PMS
A
2.7
5
2,392,55
7
Hartford, CT MS
A
0.9
8
1,183,11
0
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI MS
A
2.6
0
2,968,80
6
Columbus, OH MS
A
0.9
7
1,540,15
7
Orange County, CA PMS
A
2.5
5
2,846,28
9
Sacramento, CA PMS
A
0.8
7
1,628,19
7
Houston, TX PMS
A
2.4
2
4,177,64
6
Wichita, KS MS
A
0.8
5
545,22
0
Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon, NJ PMS
A
2.3
6
1,169,64
1
Pittsburgh, PA MS
A
0.8
2
2,358,69
5
San Francisco, CA PMS
A
2.2
7
1,731,18
3
Monmouth-Ocean, NJ PMS
A
0.8
1
1,126,21
7
Newark, NJ PMS
A
2.2
0
2,032,98
9
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN PMS
A
0.7
9
1,646,39
5
Denver, CO PMS
A
2.0
9
2,109,28
2
Ventura, CA PMS
A
0.7
0
753,19
7
Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MS
A
1.9
9
3,251,87
6
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MS
A
0.6
8
1,499,29
3
Austin-San Marcos, TX MS
A
1.9
8
1,249,76
3
Orlando, FL MS
A
0.6
5
1,644,56
1
San Diego, CA MS
A
1.8
8
2,813,83
3
San Antonio, TX MS
A
0.5
5
1,592,38
3
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC MS
A
1.7
1
1,187,94
1
Salt Lake City-Ogden, UT MS
A
0.5
4
1,333,91
4
Nassau-Suffolk, NY PMS
A
1.4
8
2,753,91
3
Riverside-San Bernardino, CA PMS
A
0.5
4
3,254,82
1
St. Louis, MO-IL MS
A
1.4
5
2,603,60
7
Fort Lauderdale, FL PMS
A
0.5
2
1,623,01
8
Baltimore, MD PMS
A
1.3
1
2,552,99
4
Nashville, TN MS
A
0.4
7
1,231,31
1
175
Report B
Metro Are
a
Inde
x
Populatio
n
Metro Are
a
Inde
x
Populatio
n
Albuquerque, NM MS
A
0.4
6
712,73
8
Lo
ui
sv
ill
e,
K
Y
-I
N
M
SA
0.
26
1,
02
5,
59
8
Wilmington-Newark, DE-MD PMS
A
0.4
6
586,21
6
Grand
Rapids-Muskegon-Holland,
MI
MS
A
0.2
5
1,088,51
4
Jersey City, NJ PMS
A
0.4
5
608,97
5
A
nn
A
rb
or
, M
I P
M
SA
0.
24
57
8,
73
6
Richmond-Petersburg, VA MS
A
0.4
5
996,51
2
Sp
rin
gf
ie
ld
, M
A
M
SA
0.
23
59
1,
93
2
Jacksonville, FL MS
A
0.4
2
1,100,49
1
Memphis, TN-AR-MS MS
A
0.2
2
1,135,61
4
Greensboro--Winston-Salem--High Point, NC M
S A
0.4
1
1,251,50
9
Columbia, SC MS
A
0.2
1
536,69
1
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY MS
A
0.4
0
875,58
3
N
ew
O
rle
an
s,
LA
M
SA
0.
21
1,
33
7,
72
6
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA MS
A
0.3
9
637,95
8
Ta
co
m
a,
W
A
P
M
SA
0.
21
70
0,
82
0
Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, SC MS
A
0.3
9
962,44
1
Little
Rock-North
Little
Rock,
AR
MS
A
0.1
9
583,84
5
Providence-Fall River-Warwick, RI-MA MS
A
0.3
9
1,188,61
3
Knoxville, TN MS
A
0.1
8
687,24
9
Tulsa, OK MS
A
0.3
8
803,23
5
Scranton--Wilkes-Barre--Hazleton,
PA
MS
A
0.1
5
624,77
6
Miami, FL PMS
A
0.3
8
2,253,36
2
Mobile, AL MS
A
0.1
3
540,25
8
West Palm Beach-Boca Raton, FL MS
A
0.3
7
1,131,18
4
Stockton-Lodi, CA MS
A
0.1
2
563,59
8
Syracuse, NY MS
A
0.3
5
732,11
7
La
s V
eg
as
, N
V
-A
Z
M
SA
0.
12
1,
56
3,
28
2
Omaha, NE-IA MS
A
0.3
4
716,99
8
Vallejo-Fairfield-Napa,
CA
PMS
A
0.1
2
518,82
1
Dayton-Springfield, OH MS
A
0.3
3
950,55
8
Sarasota-Bradenton,
FL
MS
A
0.1
2
589,95
9
Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA-NC
M
0.3
3
1,569,54
1
Fresno, CA MS
A
0.0
9
922,51
6
Tucson, AZ MS
A
0.3
3
843,74
6
H
on
ol
ul
u,
H
I M
SA
0.
09
87
6,
15
6
Birmingham, AL MS
A
0.3
3
921,10
6
To
le
do
, O
H
M
SA
0.
08
61
8,
20
3
Oklahoma City, OK MS
A
0.2
9
1,083,34
6
El Paso, TX MS
A
0.0
8
679,62
2
Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle, PA MS
A
0.2
9
629,40
1
Y
ou
ng
st
ow
n-
W
ar
re
n,
O
H
M
SA
0.
07
59
4,
74
6
Baton Rouge, LA MS
A
0.2
9
602,89
4
G
ar
y,
IN
P
M
SA
0.
07
63
1,
36
2
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY MS
A
0.2
8
1,170,11
1
Bakersfield, CA MS
A
0.0
7
661,64
5
New Haven-Meriden, CT PMS
A
0.2
7
542,14
9
Charleston-North
Charleston,
SC
MS
A
0.0
6
549,03
3
Akron, OH PMS
A
0.2
7
694,96
0
McAllen-Edinburg-Mission,
TX
MS
A
0.0
2
569,46
3
Population Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
176
Report B
APPENDIX F. THE RESEARCH TEAM
D a v i d G ib s o n , C o - P r i n c i p a l I n v e s t i g a t o r P h . D .
David V. Gibson is Associate Director and The Nadya Kozmetsky Scott Centennial Fellow at IC?
Institute, The University of Texas at Austin. In 1983, he was awarded his Ph.D. by Stanford University
in organizational behavior and communication theory. His dissertation was on the management of
innovation. Dr. Gibson teaches Knowledge/Technology Transfer and Adoption in IC?'s MSSTC degree
program. During 1999-2000, he was a Fulbright Scholar at Instituto Superior Tecnico, Lisbon,
Portugal. Dr. Gibson's research and publications focus on technology/knowledge transfer and
adoption; cross-cultural communications and management, and the growth and impact of
technopoleis or regional technology centers worldwide. He is a consultant to businesses and
governments worldwide and has made professional and keynote presentations in the U.S., Europe,
South America, and Asia. His papers have been translated into Mandarin, Japanese, Korean, Russian,
Spanish, Italian, French, German, Finnish, and Portuguese.
B r u ce K e l l i s o n , C o - P r in c i p a l I n v e s t i g a to r , P h . D .
J. Bruce Kellison is Associate Director of the Bureau of Business Research at the IC? Institute. He
received his doctorate in political science (comparative politics) from The University of Texas at Austin
in 1998. Since 1999, he has been responsible for strategic planning and research for the Bureau of
Business Research, an applied economic research unit at IC?. He also is editor of Texas Business
Review, a bi-monthly journal focusing on the business and economic priorities of the state of Texas. At
present, he is co-PI on a grant to analyze the effects of Hurricane Katrina on NASA?s Gulf Coast
facilities and NASA?s ability to fly out the Space Shuttle Program in 2010. He serves on the Board of
Directors of the Association for University Business and Economic Research and Texas Economists.
E l s i e E c h e v e r r i - C a r r o l l , Re s e ar c h S c i e n t i s t , P h . D .
Dr. Elsie Echeverri-Carroll is Director of Economic Development at the Bureau of Business Research
and Visiting Professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs and Community and Regional Planning. She
holds a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Texas at Austin and a master's degree in Regional
and Urban Planning from the University of Los Andes in Bogot?, Colombia and the Netherlands
Institute of Social Studies. She has published extensively on high technology in industrialized and
developing countries, women in business, and income inequalities in high-tech regions. She has
taught manufacturing strategy in the global economy in the MBA Program at the Red McCombs School
of Business, and international trade policy at the LBJ School of Public Affairs. She has served on
several faculty committees at the Institute of Latin American Studies and the McCombs School of
Business. She is part of the editorial board of the Journal of International Business Education. In the
Moncton project, she has been responsible for three sections: education, research at universities, and
benchmarking in Moncton.
J o h n G r e e n , R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t e , M B A , M S ST C
John is an experienced leader in telecommunication and technology commercialization efforts. He
has held senior positions at IBM, DELL and the International Science and Technology Center as well
leading several start-up technology companies. He currently is the Chief Operating Officer for AvFinity
LCC, an aerospace company focused on machine-to-machine communications.
D a r iu s M ah d jo u b i , R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a te , P h . D .
Darius is a Visiting Scholar at IC? and an Adjunct Professor of innovation and entrepreneurship at St.
Edward?s University and at the Innovation School, Norway. Darius has an Interdisciplinary Ph.D.
degree from The University of Texas at Austin. His dissertation is entitled ?Knowledge, Innovation and
Entrepreneurship,? which he conducted under the mentorship of the late Dr. George Kozmetsky.
177
Report B
Prior to his doctoral studies, he was a senior consultant at DMA, a consulting firm in Toronto, Canada.
He specialized in ?Innovation Strategies and Management of Technology.? Between 1994 and 1997
he was active in the ?Community Innovation Strategy Project,? funded by the Federal Department of
Human Resources Development Canada - HRDC. As part of the project he developed ?The Mapping of
Innovation? which uses the analogy of navigation to explicate the process of innovation. The
interdisciplinary Ph.D. on knowledge and innovation is as an extension of ?The Mapping of
Innovation.?
R o b e r t Me y e r , R e s e ar ch A s so c ia t e JD, MBA, MSSTC, LLM
Robert consults with small entrepreneurial companies, acts as corporate counsel and serves in
executive management contributing to decision-making in marketing, finance, and management. He
served as Research Commercialization and Licensing Officer for the Office of Technology Transfer of
the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville where his duties included the efficient management of the
University's intellectual property portfolio particularly in licensing negotiations and in the development
of business strategies for start-up companies. During that time he served as a board member of the
University of Arkansas Innovation Incubator and as a mentor of the Arkansas Venture Capital Forum.
At the University of the South Pacific in Fiji, he served as Acting Department Head where for two years
he lectured business law and land development. For many years Robert was a land developer and
general contractor.
R i t a W r i g h t , P r o f e s s i o n a l L i b r a r i a n , M S L S
Rita J. Wright received her Master of Science in Library Science from East Texas State University (now
Texas A&M University--Commerce) in Commerce, Texas. Since 1974, she has been responsible for
maintaining the collection of research materials housed at the Bureau of Business Research (BBR).
Since 2000 she has been the Manager of the Austin Index, an online service of the BBR. She has
represented the BBR in the Texas State Data Center network since 1983. Rita worked with the other
members of the Moncton team in finding data and related resources for this project.
M a r g a r e t Co t r o f e l d , T e c h n ic a l W r i te r /E d i to r
Margaret has worked with IC? Institute Research projects and special publications since 2001. A
writer with wide interests, Margaret has studied writing in several specialized forms including
screenwriting. She is also a photographer and graphic artist, which are complementary skills to most
publishing projects. In addition to her work on reports and special publications for IC?, Margaret is
Managing Editor for the "Texas Business Review," a bi-monthly publication of the Bureau of Business
Research. Her role in the Moncton project is to assist in the coordination of information as well as
document design and production of the final report.
R y a n M i ch a e l C o s t e r , G r ad u a t e R e s e ar ch A s s i s ta n t , B . S c . M t . A l l i s o n
U n i ve r s i t y
Ryan is in his sixth year of study and will complete his Master?s (Business Administration) from Mid
Sweden University in late January 2007.
M e g a n Me y e r , R e s e ar c h A s s i s t an t , T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f T e x as a t Au s t i n
Megan Meyer is in her fourth year of study and is concurrently pursuing an undergraduate and
graduate degree in accounting through a specialized honors program offered by the McCombs School
of Business. After graduation, she hopes to pursue a career in tax law.
G i n a P h i l i ps , R e s e ar ch As s i s t a n t , T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f T e x a s a t Au s t in
Gina is in her third year of study toward a degree in Human Relations at UT?s College of
Communication Studies. She is in the Plan II Honors Program, and she is an undergraduate research
assistant at the IC? Institute.
178
Report B
APPENDIX G. INTERVIEWS
Special thanks are extended to all those who made themselves available for personal interview by our
research team (some on multiple occasions). This study could not have proceeded without the
extraordinary courtesy they extended to the members of our research team, and the insight they
provided to the assets and challenges they face in their efforts to promote regional prosperity.
Allard, Claude. CCNB-Dieppe
Arbow, Michael. NB Securities Commission
Arsenault, Brigitte. CCNB-Dieppe
Ashrit, Dr. Pandurang. Thin Film and Photonics Research Group, UdeM
Ball, Dwight. UNB
Baxter, Brian. Oulton College
Bhavsar, Dr. Virendra. UNB
Black, Barrie. NB Innovation Fund
Bouchard, Andre. Credentia
Boundreau, Louise. Post-Secondary and Training Policy
Bourgeois, Yves. Canadian Institute for Research on Regional Developement, Universit? de Moncton.
Bourque, Benoit. Bureau of International Relations, UdeM
Brenscombe, Karen. District 02 (Anglophone District)
Brideau, Mathieu. Business NB
Brown, Dannie. International Busines Entrepreneurship Center, UNB
Carinci, Michelle. Atlantic Lottery Corp.
Carter, Brent. Atlantic Innovation Fund
Cockshutt, Amanda. Environmental Proteomics, Mt. Allison
Colosimo, Paul. South-East Regional Health Authority
Corey, Richard. NBCC
Corriveau, Georges. NRC-IIT
Crowell, Seth. Atlantic Baptist University
Cuperlovic-Culf, Miroslava. ACRI
Dewitt, Al. NBCC Moncton
Dillon, Ryan. Royal Bank of Canada
Drummond, Robin. Spielo
Duff, Steve. BioNova
Duguay, Mireille. Maritime Provinces Higher Ed. Commiss.
English, Jock. Intelisys
Farrell, Ellen. St. Mary's University
Finlay, Ross. First Angel Network
Foord, David. UNB
Forton, Peter. Growthworks
Frenette, Denise. AIF (ACOA)
Gagnon, Yves. Universit? de Moncton.
Gallant, Luc. Vimsoft
Gaudet, Rachelle. South-East Regional Health Authority
Gauthier, Philippe. BMG (Network Centrix)
Good, Debbie.
Goguen, Rene. CCNB-Dieppe
Goguen, Robert. Beausejour Regional Health Authority
Grant, Daniel. UdeM, placement office
Hall, Rejean. Universit? de Moncton.
Harper, James. Enterprise Greater Moncton
Hatchard, Derek. Ardent Development
Hicks, Susan. Technology Venture Corp.
Kealey, Gregory. UNB
Keizer, Elliott. UNB
Landry, Jocelyne. Bureau of International Relations, UdeM
179
Report B
Lang, Denise. ACOA
Langley, William. IRAP
Lanteigne, Denis. AIF/ACOA
Laurie, Robert. Franchophone District
Legresley, Michael. Giffels Land Development Company
Leung, Michael. TR Labs, Alberta
Liddy, Jim. South-East Regional Health Authority
Lirette, Jacques. South-East Regional Health Authority
Lowe, Brian. First Angel Network
Lyndon, Barry. Anglophone District
MacDonald, Scot. Tech PEI
Maffre, Christelle. Ouest Atlantique
Mancuso, Michelina. Moncton Hospital
Mancuso, Michelina. South-East Regional Health Authority
Manship, Jon. Technology Venture Corp.
Manuel, Paul. Vimsoft
McDonald, Adam. Spheric Technologies
McDonald, Robert. Atlantic Baptist University
McKnight, Holly. Moncton Flight College; and NBCC-Moncton
McLeod, Ron. TARA (Telecomm Applications Research Alliance)
Morley, Fred. GHP
Nickerson, Brad. UNB
O'Donnell, Mary. Business Development Bank of Canada
Ouellette, Rodney. Atlantic Cancer Research Institute (lobster)
Palmer, Steve. Whitehill
Papillon, Eric. Mindsweep
Parrot, Andrew. OAO Technologies
Poirier, Charline. OAO Technologies
Pond, Gerry. Propel SJ and Mariner Partners, Inc.
Power, Mike. IBM
Prosser, Craig. Moncton Flight College
Reddick, Andrew. NRC--IIT
Richard, Gerald. District 01 (Francophone District)
Ritchie, Dale. McKenzie College
Robertson, Doug. Moncton
Roy, Valerie. Greater Moncton Chamber
Rybak, Bob. GTECH
Rybak, Elizabeth. VE Networks
Savoie, Charles. Oulton
Savoie, Frank. Connections Media
Sheppard, Graham. NBCC-Moncton
Small, David. GTECH
Snook, Sara Jane. Springboard
Soucy, Ann. UNB Placement Office
Steele, Stewart. South-East Regional Health Authority
Stewart, Jack. BioProspecting NB, Inc. and Mt. Allison
Surette, Marc. Universit? de Moncton.
Theriault, Michel. Training and Employment Development
Thompson, John. Enterprise Greater Moncton
Tye, Pat. Greater Moncton Chamber
Vienneau, Daniel. Nanoptix
Weeks, Leonard. Business NB
Whitehouse-Sheehan, Darlene. Coady, Trisha. MedSenses
Wiggers, Richard. Post-Secondary and Training Policy
180
Report B
APPENDIX H. BIBLIOGRPAHY
Advisory Council on Science and Technology. Public Investments in University Research: Report of the
Expert Panel on the Commercialization of University Research, May 4, 1999.
Ashrit, Pandurang, Director, Thin Films and Photonic Research Group (GCMP), Universit? de Moncton.
?Innovation In Optics, Photonics, Thin Films & Materials,? undated PowerPoint presentation
provided to the IC2 research team by the author.
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. A Guide to the Programs and Services of Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency (ACOA). Brochure.
Atlantic Innovation Fund. Atlantic Innovation Fund RFP, Round III, July 2005 and round IV 2006,
March 2006.
Atlantic Provinces Community College Consortium. ICT Symposium Report: Enabling ICT in Atlantic
Canada---A Role for Colleges. November 2006.
Black, Barrie, New Brunswick Innovation Foundation Research and Venture Investments. 2006
Bourgeoise, Yves and Samuel LeBlanc. Innovation in Atlantic Canada. Moncton, NB: The Canadian
Institute for Research on Regional Development, Universit? de Moncton, 2002.
Business New Brunswick. Planning for Prosperity: Strategic Plan 2004-2007. Fredericton, NB:
Business New Brunswick/The Enterprise Network, 2004.
Cadenhead, Gary and David Gibson. Plano Talk for TEDC. April 2003.
Canada Opportunities Agency. Fast Forward: An Innovation Guide for Small and Medium Enterprises.
Brochure.
Christian Couturier, Director, NRC-IIT, Canadian Government Executive, "Building a Technology Cluster:
Lessons from NRC in New Brunswick.? March 2004.
City of Moncton. City of Moncton Annual Report. 2003.
City of Moncton. Economic Development Strategy, City of Moncton. November 2005.
City of Moncton. City of Moncton's Corporate Strategic Plan, Vision 2010, January 2006.
Cornford, Alan. Innovation and Commercialization in Atlantic Canada. March 2002.
Cortright, Joseph. Making Sense of Clusters: Regional Competitiveness and Economic Development.
Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2006.
Council on Competitiveness, U.S. Dept of Commerce. Measuring Regional Innovation: A Guidebook for
Conducting Regional Innovation Assessments. October 2005.
Crelinsten, Jeffrey. From Research to Commerce: Changing Our Priorities about Commercialization.
?Toronto: The Impact Group, for the Information Technology Association of Canada,? June 2005.
Enterprise Greater Moncton. Annual Report. 2004-2005.
Enterprise Greater Moncton/ShiftCentral. Building on our Success: A Strategic Plan for Moncton. April
2004.
Expert Panel on Commercialization, Canadian Ministry of Industry. People and Excellence: The Heart
of Successful Commercialization, 2006.
First National Wastewater Forum, Ronald J. LeBlanc. Closing the Loop in Water Management: A Cross
Canada Look at the State of Wastewater Policy and Legislation, First National Wastewater Forum.
2005.
Gardner Pinfold Consulting Economists, Ltd. Economic Impact of the Universities in the Atlantic
Provinces. February 2006.
Gibson, David, IC? Institute, and Angelou Economics. Assessment & Roadmap for Accelerated
Technology-Based Growth in the Waco/McLennan Region. 2003.
Grant Thornton, LLP. Taking Charge: A Strategic Economic Development Plan for Moncton. January
2002.
Grant Thornton, LLP. Outpacing The Competition: A Marketing And Implementation Plan for the
Greater Moncton Area. January 2002.
Guthrie, Brian. Picking a Path to Prosperity: A Strategy for Global-Best Commerce. Ottawa, Ontario:
Leaders? Roundtable on Commercialization, The Conference Board of Canada, 2006.
Hall, Rejean. ?R&D Capabilities at the Universit? de Moncton.? Undated Powerpoint presentation
given to the research team by the author.
IC? Institute and TIP Strategies. Auburn Proposal Final PowerPoint. 2003.
Industry Canada. Canadian Venture Capital Activity: Trends 1999-2002. 2002. Available at
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/sme_fdi-prf_pme.nsf/en/01197e.html.
181
Report B
Innovation and Knowledge Management. Lessons in Public-Private Research Collaboration, Improving
Interactions between Individuals, 7th Annual Innovation Report, ?Innovation and Knowledge
Management.? March 31, 2006.
Jarrett, James E., Rob Smithson. Entrepreneurial Assessment and Feasibility of a Cedar Park
Incubator, Executive Summary. 2003.
Joseph, Robert, Michael Bordt, and Daood Hamdani. Characteristics of Business Incubation in
Canada, 2005. Ottawa: Statistics Canada (Science, Innovation and Electronic Information
Division), 2006.
Knowledge, Inc. Research & Discovery, Vol. 1, No. 2. 2005.
Maclean's. Maclean?s, , University Rankings 2004, November 15, 2004.
Maclean's. Maclean's Guide to Canadian Universities, 2006.
Market Quest Research. Enterprise Greater Moncton Labour Market Study. March 2003.
Martin, Roger L. ?The Demand for Innovation in Canada,? unpublished paper, 2002.
New Brunswick Community College. Programs and Services 2005-2006.
New Brunswick Provincial Government. Progress on Prosperity: New Brunswick's Prosperity Plan.
2006.
National Research Council. Building Technology Clusters Across Canada. 2005.
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC). Research Means Business, A Directory
of Companies Built on NSERC-supported University Research. 2005.
OAO Technology Solutions. Company Overview. January 2006.
Ouellette, Rodney, with the Beausejour Medical Research Inst. Personalized Medicine in Cancer,
Proposal submitted for Round III of the Atlantic Innovation Fund. October 2005.
Parteq Innovations. Advancing Discovery, Annual Report. 2005.
Premier?s Advisory Council on Innovation. 5.
Red Hot Learning. New Brunswick Capacity Study: Gaming, Simulation, and Animation Report,
October 2004.
Robertson, Douglas J. Regional Community Technology-Based Growth ? Atlantic Canada. 2006.
Samuel, Joshua. ?The Birth of a Company.? Progress, Vol. 12, No. 9, November 2005.
Savoie, Donald. Visiting Grandchildren: Economic Development in the Maritimes. Toronto: University
of Toronto Press, 2006.
ShiftCentral, Inc. Halifax-Moncton Growth Corridor: Asset Mapping. January 2003.
Usher and Steele, Educational Policy Institute. Beyond the 49th Parallel II: Affordability of University
Education. 2006.